Eh. Hard atheism is a matter of words. We use it for the same reason others use agnosticism - so we can discriminate against people we find offensive by putting them in another group.
Not at all. "There is no such thing as god" is a positive statement that requires evidence to support. "I lack a belief in god" is not.
"I will not fall through my chair" is a positive statement that requires evidence to support.
Re: atheist vs. agnostic vs. weak atheist vs. strong atheist.
I know that there are important philosophical, religious, moral issues to be discussed here, I really do, but reading the past few pages I can't help myself from thinking:
"Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it!"
This hair splitting and labeling and sub-labeling has got to stop.
When we see stuff like that U of M Survey (That atheists are the most distrusted group in america), or prop 8, or school boards improving intelligent design, or any number of places where fundamentalist religion has invaded American politics, I think that there is more that We (more on who "we" is in a sec) could be doing to stop this.
But the thrust of it is this: we need to come out. We need to exist in the public sphere, and let people get to know us and see us and interact with us in civil society as atheists. Just like Gay people have come out and let their own public existence be a (quite effective) political statement. (I'm not trying to compare which group has suffered more, just seeing a useful strategy).
Of course, the question is, who is "we"? there are people who have a general distaste for religion (or who want to see it separated from politics) that are uncomfortable with the term "Atheist." Dawkins himself has proposed "non-theist" and "bright" at various times, but I think that this is the loser's way out.
I think that we ought to rally around the term "Atheist", the term that our society thinks of most negatively, and make it as wide a term as possible. Atheists are atheists, agnostics are atheists, deists are atheists, "Nones" are atheists, secular Jews are atheists, buddhists are atheists, and Christmas-and-Easter catholics are pretty damned close. I see a parallel strategy in what the gay community has done with the word "Queer."
I know this kinda comes off as over-dramatic, but this is something I've felt strongly about for a long time. I'm far from persecuted, but I do see plenty of ill in the world that I think an "Atheist movement" has the potential to affect.
Colloquially, these are completely uncontroversial statements. If someone said "elves are imaginary" you wouldn't require them to provide evidence or retract their statement.
@Arch, I thought you made that position clear before (i.e. religions should evolve), and I thought I had made it clear that I disagree with you. I still see no reason why Christianity and Judaism cannot, or should not, end up like Babylonian or Greek mythology: extinct memes.
I also disagree that religion and science are compatible. The only way they become compatible is if religion adapts by ignoring the swaths of its content and doctrine that contradict science. That's not compatibility, that's memetic predation.
Colloquially, these are completely uncontroversial statements. If someone said "elves are imaginary" you wouldn't require them to provide evidence or retract their statement.
Ah. Your point is well-taken. My only point is that in a very technical sense, stating a belief is different than not having a belief. In real-world terms, you're correct, it's often a distinction without a difference.
The main point of an Atheist movement would be to call for scientific policy making and call out public policy being manipulated by religious lobbying groups.
Colloquially, these are completely uncontroversial statements. If someone said "elves are imaginary" you wouldn't require them to provide evidence or retract their statement.
@Arch, I thought you made that position clear before (i.e. religions should evolve), and I thought I had made it clear that I disagree with you. I still see no reason why Christianity and Judaism cannot, or should not, end up like Babylonian or Greek mythology: extinct memes.
I also disagree that religion and science are compatible. The only way they become compatible is if religion adapts by ignoring the swaths of its content and doctrine that contradict science. That's not compatibility, that's memetic predation.
I would call it compatibility if the religion still has a large following who are following a more modern interpretation of classical holy texts because they are critically thinking about the works.
Although I do like the phrase "memetic predation", I hardly think this is an example of that force at work here.
The main point of an Atheist movement would be to call for scientific policy making and call out public policy being manipulated by religious lobbying groups.
agreed. I think that the privileged status that our government gives groups like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts of America would also be a relevant topic.
The main point of an Atheist movement would be to call for scientific policy making and call out public policy being manipulated by religious lobbying groups.
agreed. I think that the privileged status that our government gives groups like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts of America would also be a relevant topic.
Are those groups traditionally religious? I do not seem to remember any sort of "Went to Church" merit badge, and rather I got the "Science Fair" merit badge.
I do not know a single one of these "hard atheists" you guys are talking about. The main argument of atheism is that there is basically zero evidence that would point to the affirmative existence of god. If there is no evidence that something exists, then it is relegated strictly to the realm of imagination and possibility until some kind of practical evidence can be brought into play. Many of the precepts in organized religions are both demonstrably false and contain ethical codes which are widely considered immoral by modern western standards. Believing in an immoral code of ethics and/or flawed understanding of the universe because of a belief in a being that you cannot even prove exists seems rather foolish.
However, if for example some dude claiming to be the messiah inexplicably appeared and dead people started rising up out of their graves for no apparent reason, then I would be willing to entertain the possibility of the Talmud being based on more than just imaginative fiction.
Belief in something that is completely unfounded and unprovable (Both the existence and nonexistence of god) is a completely irrational way of thinking, and is rejected by most atheists (at least in my experience). This includes myself and all other atheists that I know.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
The main point of an Atheist movement would be to call for scientific policy making and call out public policy being manipulated by religious lobbying groups.
agreed. I think that the privileged status that our government gives groups like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts of America would also be a relevant topic.
Are those groups traditionally religious? I do not seem to remember any sort of "Went to Church" merit badge, and rather I got the "Science Fair" merit badge.
Am I wrong?
The BSA has some explicit religion as part of their standard curriculum, but much more troubling is their policy of disallowing atheists or homosexuals to serve as a troop leader (or whatever they call them).
The main point of an Atheist movement would be to call for scientific policy making and call out public policy being manipulated by religious lobbying groups.
agreed. I think that the privileged status that our government gives groups like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts of America would also be a relevant topic.
Are those groups traditionally religious? I do not seem to remember any sort of "Went to Church" merit badge, and rather I got the "Science Fair" merit badge.
Am I wrong?
The BSA has some explicit religion as part of their standard curriculum, but much more troubling is their policy of disallowing atheists or homosexuals to serve as a troop leader (or whatever they call them).
For some reason I forgot about that little tidbit.
I would call it compatibility if the religion still has a large following who are following a more modern interpretation of classical holy texts because they are critically thinking about the works.
Although I do like the phrase "memetic predation", I hardly think this is an example of that force at work here.
Let's do a hypothetical and look at the way Aristotle's philosophy has "evolved" over time.
Aristotle's philosophy, like the Bible, was hugely influential and underlies many facets of our current civilization. However, through the ages, philosophers found a number of flaws in the content of his philosophy. Aristotle was wrong about some of the stuff he said about gender, for example.
He was also wrong about the geocentric shape of the universe, and the nature of what stars and planets are.
He was wrong about his four-element system and that the laws of motion and gravity are somehow dependent on stuff being made of earth, fire, wind, or water.
He was wrong about the "unmoved mover" argument for God.
Aristotle was wrong about all sorts of shit, which people now recognize without question. To put it another way, rival positions ate away at the legitimacy and perceived truth-value of Aristotle's positions.
Now, imagine there is some modern group that claims to be "Aristotelians." They accept all the things that modern science says. They accept that the content of Aristotle's writings, as understood "literally," are flawed. But they maintain that Aristotle is "compatible" with modern science—just so long as you interpret it "metaphorically," or take a "critical view" of his writings.
This is euphemistic nonsense, but it's exactly what you're suggesting about Christianity.
I would call it compatibility if the religion still has a large following who are following a more modern interpretation of classical holy texts because they are critically thinking about the works.
Although I do like the phrase "memetic predation", I hardly think this is an example of that force at work here.
Let's do a hypothetical and look at the way Aristotle's philosophy has "evolved" over time.
Aristotle's philosophy, like the Bible, was hugely influential and underlies many facets of our current civilization. However, through the ages, philosophers found a number of flaws in the content of his philosophy. Aristotle was wrong about some of the stuff he said about gender, for example.
He was also wrong about the geocentric shape of the universe, and the nature of what stars and planets are.
He was wrong about his four-element system and that the laws of motion and gravity are somehow dependent on stuff being made of earth, fire, wind, or water.
He was wrong about the "unmoved mover" argument for God.
Aristotle was wrong about all sorts of shit, which people now recognize without question. To put it another way, rival positions ate away at the legitimacy and perceived truth-value of Aristotle's positions.
Now, imagine there is some modern group that claims to be "Aristotelians." They accept all the things that modern science says. They accept that the content of Aristotle's writings, as understood "literally," are flawed. But they maintain that Aristotle is "compatible" with modern science—just so long as you interpret it "metaphorically," or take a "critical view" of his writings.
This is euphemistic nonsense, but it's exactly what you're suggesting about Christianity.
What would be an accurate example of "Metaphorical Aristoleian Views"? I am legitimately having a problem trying to come up with an example and I feel it would lend weight to your arguments.
I am not trying to be snide here, but I am really struggling.
The main point of an Atheist movement would be to call for scientific policy making and call out public policy being manipulated by religious lobbying groups.
agreed. I think that the privileged status that our government gives groups like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts of America would also be a relevant topic.
Are those groups traditionally religious? I do not seem to remember any sort of "Went to Church" merit badge, and rather I got the "Science Fair" merit badge.
Am I wrong?
The BSA has some explicit religion as part of their standard curriculum, but much more troubling is their policy of disallowing atheists or homosexuals to serve as a troop leader (or whatever they call them).
Yeah AA also has that whole bit about "surrendering to a higher power".
And also retardedly great publicity for their apparently poor success rates.
What would be an accurate example of "Metaphorical Aristoleian Views"? I am legitimately having a problem trying to come up with an example and I feel it would lend weight to your arguments.
I am not trying to be snide here, but I am really struggling.
Well, you could say that when Aristotle was talking about the four elements, he really meant the four phase-states of matter.
Which is, of course, bullshit, and still doesn't conform with modern science.
But it makes about as much sense as trying to describe a standard Mesopotamian humans-from-clay creation myth as a metaphor, or a standard Mesopotamian "reset button" flood myth where the gods pop the bubble of flat-earth creation as a metaphor.
I know it makes you upset when I criticize the position that the silly stuff in the Bible is actually metaphors for less-silly stuff. But it makes just as much sense as claiming Aristotle's mistakes are metaphors. That's why I criticize it. It is dishonest textual interpretation.
What would be an accurate example of "Metaphorical Aristoleian Views"? I am legitimately having a problem trying to come up with an example and I feel it would lend weight to your arguments.
I am not trying to be snide here, but I am really struggling.
Well, you could say that when Aristotle was talking about the four elements, he really meant the four phase-states of matter.
Which is, of course, bullshit, and still doesn't conform with modern science.
But it makes about as much sense as trying to describe a standard Mesopotamian humans-from-clay creation myth as a metaphor, or a standard Mesopotamian "reset button" flood myth where the gods pop the bubble of flat-earth creation as a metaphor.
I know it makes you upset when I criticize the position that the silly stuff in the Bible is actually metaphors for less-silly stuff. But it makes just as much sense as claiming Aristotle's mistakes are metaphors. That's why I criticize it. It is dishonest textual interpretation.
I don't know, because I think that is a pretty good example of how you could conceptualize what I am talking about.
You are also misunderstanding my ire. I am upset at your insistence that there can only be one. It may not have been intended as metaphor, but as we began to understand more of the world we can view previous teachings and writings as an extended metaphor for what we now know to be true.
Your argument leans heavily and dangerously into territory that has us ignore any ideas present in religious text completely out of hand because the underlying initial idea for that religion is no longer valid or accepted as true.
Yes, Aristotle's ideas are and were incorrect. But there are still things to be learned in his works, even if he was wrong.
What I am saying is that a Christian who recognizes the inherent flaws in their religious text but still practices Christian traditions and accepts the Bible as their personal sacred book is not intellectually dishonest, and their view is compatible with the modern scientific view you are proposing.
The main point of an Atheist movement would be to call for scientific policy making and call out public policy being manipulated by religious lobbying groups.
agreed. I think that the privileged status that our government gives groups like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts of America would also be a relevant topic.
Are those groups traditionally religious? I do not seem to remember any sort of "Went to Church" merit badge, and rather I got the "Science Fair" merit badge.
Am I wrong?
The BSA has some explicit religion as part of their standard curriculum, but much more troubling is their policy of disallowing atheists or homosexuals to serve as a troop leader (or whatever they call them).
For some reason I forgot about that little tidbit.
There are people who understand that their religious ideas are irrational and act that way, much like anime fans know that they cannot defeat the evil power with truth love and friendship but still get giddy over cosplay. For many people, the ceremony and community and occasional imaginary friend (which is just internal debate) is the real point. Really, one of the primary reasons religion is still around is that people have not taken to community centers as well as they should (or it is the CAUSE of this fact, which I suspect). My Buddhist friend goes on trips across the globe twice a year or so to attend festivals, coming back with photos from Paris and London and so forth, and she has a supportive community around her. She's even aware that she's accepted them at least partly because of the benefits, and considering the cool shit she does, it's hard to blame her. But if that was available to everyone on a public level, without having to believe in reincarnation...
I don't know, because I think that is a pretty good example of how you could conceptualize what I am talking about.
You are also misunderstanding my ire. I am upset at your insistence that there can only be one. It may not have been intended as metaphor, but as we began to understand more of the world we can view previous teachings and writings as an extended metaphor for what we now know to be true.
But why on earth would we ever do that?
Why would you ever interpret Aristotle's mistaken ideas about physics to be "extended metaphors for what we now know to be true"? They aren't!
Aristotle's work, like the Bible, and like every myth, was the earnest attempt to understand the natural world by human beings, working with the culture, technology, and knowledge available to them. But they weren't writing extended metaphors for things they had no idea about. I'm sorry to be harsh, but that's nonsense.
Your argument leans heavily and dangerously into territory that has us ignore any ideas present in religious text completely out of hand because the underlying initial idea for that religion is no longer valid or accepted as true.
Howso? I never said we should ignore every idea Aristotle proposed. I said we should, and do, reject his ideas that have been disproven by modern science. And then I said that "re-interpreting" these particular mistaken ideas so as to be "metaphors" for things Aristotle had no idea about and never intended to imply is intellectually dishonest.
Yes, Aristotle's ideas are and were incorrect. But there are still things to be learned in his works, even if he was wrong.
Yeah. But that's entirely different from saying the wrong things in his works are actually extended metaphors.
What I am saying is that a Christian who recognizes the inherent flaws in their religious text but still practices Christian traditions and accepts the Bible as their personal sacred book is not intellectually dishonest, and their view is compatible with the modern scientific view you are proposing.
But it's compatible in the same way our Aristotelian's views on Aristotle are compatible.
Which is to say, not at all. I understand the word "compatibility" to mean a two-way street. What you're explicitly suggesting is that Christianity is only compatible with modern science if it conforms to modern science, with Christians rejecting anything in their scriptures or traditions that contradicts modern science. This kind of "compatibility" is a euphemism.
I should also add that myths can be metaphors. I accept the possibility that the ancient Hebrews and Babylonians, or at least some of them, didn't believe that Ea Enki or Yahweh or whoever literally molded human beings from clay—they had fluid understandings of the nature of their gods, which could simultaneously take on human appearances or look like lights in the sky.
Myths have always been understood non-literally. They can also function as templates for storytelling—the Bible's flood myth uses an identical template as earlier Akkadian and Sumerian myths, it just plugs in a few different values for the gods' identity and the moral lesson.
However, when you say something is a metaphor, that doesn't mean it can be a metaphor for anything. It doesn't mean that something written by bronze-age nomads was intended to signify something superficially reminiscent in modern science. This is simply not an honest way to interpret texts, and I think it does violence to the integrity and cohesiveness of the text itself.
I don't know, because I think that is a pretty good example of how you could conceptualize what I am talking about.
You are also misunderstanding my ire. I am upset at your insistence that there can only be one. It may not have been intended as metaphor, but as we began to understand more of the world we can view previous teachings and writings as an extended metaphor for what we now know to be true.
But why on earth would we ever do that?
Why would you ever interpret Aristotle's mistaken ideas about physics to be "extended metaphors for what we now know to be true"? They aren't!
Aristotle's work, like the Bible, and like every myth, was the earnest attempt to understand the natural world by human beings, working with the culture, technology, and knowledge available to them. But they weren't writing extended metaphors for things they had no idea about. I'm sorry to be harsh, but that's nonsense.
Your argument leans heavily and dangerously into territory that has us ignore any ideas present in religious text completely out of hand because the underlying initial idea for that religion is no longer valid or accepted as true.
Howso? I never said we should ignore every idea Aristotle proposed. I said we should, and do, reject his ideas that have been disproven by modern science. And then I said that "re-interpreting" these particular mistaken ideas so as to be "metaphors" for things Aristotle had no idea about and never intended to imply is intellectually dishonest.
Yes, Aristotle's ideas are and were incorrect. But there are still things to be learned in his works, even if he was wrong.
Yeah. But that's entirely different from saying the wrong things in his works are actually extended metaphors.
What I am saying is that a Christian who recognizes the inherent flaws in their religious text but still practices Christian traditions and accepts the Bible as their personal sacred book is not intellectually dishonest, and their view is compatible with the modern scientific view you are proposing.
But it's compatible in the same way our Aristotelian's views on Aristotle are compatible.
Which is to say, not at all. I understand the word "compatibility" to mean a two-way street. What you're explicitly suggesting is that Christianity is only compatible with modern science if it conforms to modern science, with Christians rejecting anything in their scriptures or traditions that contradicts modern science. This kind of "compatibility" is a euphemism.
Yes, I actually agree with you here, but I am also raising my hackles at your claim that Christianity evolving memetically from a hard religion to a personal philosophy is dishonest.
I am ignoring the Aristotle stuff for many reasons, most of all because he was undertaking his ideas as someone who could be considered a "scientist", as he is widely accepted to have been one of the founders of the modern scientific thought. It was an interesting thought experiment but as I considered it it began to make less sense since his writings have never been intended to be a guide to how people should live their lives, unlike major religions.
The thing we also seem to quibble about is the relative importance of these stories in christianity (flood, genesis, etc) are to the overall message and belief system one must adopt to be considered "Christian".
Yes, the scientific worldview directly undermines some things about Christianity, but my main argument has and will be that those things are not directly integral to the message of the faith. The only miracle a Christian needs to accept is that after three days, Jesus came back to life. In my mine, the rest is just window dressing that can be interpreted as metaphor.
And even then, one could be considered a "Christian" if they followed a large portion of the teachings of Jesus, the Christ and meditated on the accepted Christian holy text (I. E., the Bible)
What would be an accurate example of "Metaphorical Aristoleian Views"? I am legitimately having a problem trying to come up with an example and I feel it would lend weight to your arguments.
I am not trying to be snide here, but I am really struggling.
Well, you could say that when Aristotle was talking about the four elements, he really meant the four phase-states of matter.
Which is, of course, bullshit, and still doesn't conform with modern science.
But it makes about as much sense as trying to describe a standard Mesopotamian humans-from-clay creation myth as a metaphor, or a standard Mesopotamian "reset button" flood myth where the gods pop the bubble of flat-earth creation as a metaphor.
I know it makes you upset when I criticize the position that the silly stuff in the Bible is actually metaphors for less-silly stuff. But it makes just as much sense as claiming Aristotle's mistakes are metaphors. That's why I criticize it. It is dishonest textual interpretation.
I don't know, because I think that is a pretty good example of how you could conceptualize what I am talking about.
You are also misunderstanding my ire. I am upset at your insistence that there can only be one. It may not have been intended as metaphor, but as we began to understand more of the world we can view previous teachings and writings as an extended metaphor for what we now know to be true.
Your argument leans heavily and dangerously into territory that has us ignore any ideas present in religious text completely out of hand because the underlying initial idea for that religion is no longer valid or accepted as true.
Yes, Aristotle's ideas are and were incorrect. But there are still things to be learned in his works, even if he was wrong.
What I am saying is that a Christian who recognizes the inherent flaws in their religious text but still practices Christian traditions and accepts the Bible as their personal sacred book is not intellectually dishonest, and their view is compatible with the modern scientific view you are proposing.
Why would I want to continue to adhere to a text which I know is wrong? If it's not intellectually dishonest, it's absolutely nuts - clinging to something you know is false for the sake of something, i'm not sure exactly what.
If your point is that maybe the bible has some useful moral fables (like don't eat shellfish) in spite of its factual inaccuracy, i'm OK with that. It's just that useful moral fables don't compel faith; truth does.
I should also add that myths can be metaphors. I accept the possibility that the ancient Hebrews and Babylonians, or at least some of them, didn't believe that Ea Enki or Yahweh or whoever literally molded human beings from clay—they had fluid understandings of the nature of their gods, which could simultaneously take on human appearances or look like lights in the sky.
Myths have always been understood non-literally. They can also function as templates for storytelling—the Bible's flood myth uses an identical template as earlier Akkadian and Sumerian myths, it just plugs in a few different values for the gods' identity and the moral lesson.
However, when you say something is a metaphor, that doesn't mean it can be a metaphor for anything. It doesn't mean that something written by bronze-age nomads was intended to signify something superficially reminiscent in modern science. This is simply not an honest way to interpret texts, and I think it does violence to the integrity and cohesiveness of the text itself.
Ok, this here actually makes a lot of your argument and problems much more clear to me. I understand your view a lot more now, and I may retract some of my points (even those in the post I just made) after I give this some more thought.
The only miracle a Christian needs to accept is that after three days, Jesus came back to life. In my mine, the rest is just window dressing that can be interpreted as metaphor.
What would be an accurate example of "Metaphorical Aristoleian Views"? I am legitimately having a problem trying to come up with an example and I feel it would lend weight to your arguments.
I am not trying to be snide here, but I am really struggling.
Well, you could say that when Aristotle was talking about the four elements, he really meant the four phase-states of matter.
Which is, of course, bullshit, and still doesn't conform with modern science.
But it makes about as much sense as trying to describe a standard Mesopotamian humans-from-clay creation myth as a metaphor, or a standard Mesopotamian "reset button" flood myth where the gods pop the bubble of flat-earth creation as a metaphor.
I know it makes you upset when I criticize the position that the silly stuff in the Bible is actually metaphors for less-silly stuff. But it makes just as much sense as claiming Aristotle's mistakes are metaphors. That's why I criticize it. It is dishonest textual interpretation.
I don't know, because I think that is a pretty good example of how you could conceptualize what I am talking about.
You are also misunderstanding my ire. I am upset at your insistence that there can only be one. It may not have been intended as metaphor, but as we began to understand more of the world we can view previous teachings and writings as an extended metaphor for what we now know to be true.
Your argument leans heavily and dangerously into territory that has us ignore any ideas present in religious text completely out of hand because the underlying initial idea for that religion is no longer valid or accepted as true.
Yes, Aristotle's ideas are and were incorrect. But there are still things to be learned in his works, even if he was wrong.
What I am saying is that a Christian who recognizes the inherent flaws in their religious text but still practices Christian traditions and accepts the Bible as their personal sacred book is not intellectually dishonest, and their view is compatible with the modern scientific view you are proposing.
Why would I want to continue to adhere to a text which I know is wrong? If it's not intellectually dishonest, it's absolutely nuts - clinging to something you know is false for the sake of something, i'm not sure exactly what.
If your point is that maybe the bible has some useful moral fables (like don't eat shellfish) in spite of its factual inaccuracy, i'm OK with that. It's just that useful moral fables don't compel faith; truth does.
My main claim is that Christianity can be claimed as your religion if you accept the moral teachings and traditions of the religion and claim that the Bible is your "sacred text", regardless of how much you believe about the factuality of the fables/myths/parables inside.
This, to me, is a good example of a successful "religion" that has evolved competitively memeistically to survive in a changing world, and that this interpretation is not dishonest.
The only miracle a Christian needs to accept is that after three days, Jesus came back to life. In my mine, the rest is just window dressing that can be interpreted as metaphor.
That miracle is meaningless on its own.
It is also a boring miracle which has little to do with whether Jesus is divine or not.
I am ignoring the Aristotle stuff for many reasons, most of all because he was undertaking his ideas as someone who could be considered a "scientist", as he is widely accepted to have been one of the founders of the modern scientific thought.
1. I think there is a false dichotomy between scientific explanations and mythical explanations. As I said, I think many myths are earnest attempts to explain the world. Look at, for example, the Mesopotamian idea of the sky and the oceans.
In the Babylonian creation myth, the world starts with two beings, Apsu and Tiamat. Apsu is freshwater, Tiamat is saltwater. They have kids, the gods, and standard polytheist generational conflict ensues. The "creation" of the world happens when one of these kids, Marduk, defeats Tiamat in battle and stretches out her corpse to form the oceans of the world and the waters above the sky. Apsu, meanwhile, was taken over by a god named Ea who now runs the underground water supply.
This basic template is repeated in the Bible, sans polytheism. God creates the world by "separating the waters from the waters." He forms a "dome" or "firmament" to hold up the above-sky ocean. The world in the Bible, like the world in previous Mesopotamian myths, is understood as sandwiched, like a bubble, between these two all-encompassing bodies of water. It is much like the underwater kingdom of Hyrule in Wind Waker. And when God floods the world, it's not a regular flood—he "pops" this bubble by "opening the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep." (This is why Noah's ark needed to be sealed in pitch—it was a submarine).
So, this all sounds crazy to us, and not scientific in the least. But put yourself in the shoes of a bronze-age nomad trying to figure out what the sky is. You know that water falls from the sky. You know that large bodies of water are blue. So, logic, there must be an ocean up there. Since oceans just don't float, you know that some domelike structure must be holding it up. Similarly, you can dig into the earth and find freshwater. So you figure there must be an ocean down there too.
The people who came up with the cosmology of Mesopotamian mythology were doing the same thing Aristotle was doing, and vaguely the same thing that scientists do today. They were making inferences based on their observations of the world around them.
It was an interesting thought experiment but as I considered it it began to make less sense since his writings have never been intended to be a guide to how people should live their lives, unlike major religions.
Actually, Aristotle, like many philosophers, wrote extensively about morality (though less so than Plato? I haven't actually studied him that much.)
Again, I think you're sort of drawing a false dichotomy here between "religion" and "philosophy." I understand religion as a sub-category of philosophy, one that is concerned with gods. But religion verges in to non-god philosophy (see Deism, pantheism, Zen Buddhism). It's a line in the sand, ultimately.
Yes, the scientific worldview directly undermines some things about Christianity, but my main argument has and will be that those things are not directly integral to the message of the faith. The only miracle a Christian needs to accept is that after three days, Jesus came back to life. In my mine, the rest is just window dressing that can be interpreted as metaphor.
I agree with your first point—that the line in the sand for "Christianity" ought to be the Resurrection—but not with the second. Which I think you acknowledge below (i.e. you can't just say something is a metaphor for anything.)
Also, the miracle makes no sense without the context of Old Testament mythology. The point of the Resurrection is that it's a sacrifice meant to replace the Old Testament sacrificial system, where you kill animals and burn them for Yahweh to make up for sins, as defined by all the rules of the Old Testament. If you don't believe that Yahweh handed down these rules and that you need to follow them to avoid punishment, there really is no point to Jesus' sacrifice, since he's not "saving" you from anything. But then, I doubt that many "Christians" really consider the underlying theology. Which is a shame, because if they did they probably would realize how ridiculous it is.
And even then, one could be considered a "Christian" if they followed a large portion of the teachings of Jesus, the Christ and meditated on the accepted Christian holy text (I. E., the Bible)
I like this definition less because then Jesus is just a philosopher and Christianity is just a philosophical disposition. But like I said, whatever floats your boat.
My main claim is that Christianity can be claimed as your religion if you accept the moral teachings and traditions of the religion and claim that the Bible is your "sacred text", regardless of how much you believe about the factuality of the fables/myths/parables inside.
But most Christians don't accept the majority of the moral teachings of the Bible. Many Christians are Biblical illiterate and would be horrified to learn what those moral teachings are. And when it comes down to it, such Christians may claim that the Bible is a "sacred text" but they don't really treat its moral or truth value any differently from any other collection of fables and myths.
This, to me, is a good example of a successful "religion" that has evolved competitively memeistically to survive in a changing world, and that this interpretation is not dishonest.
I disagree; I think it's fundamentally dishonest, or else necessarily ignorant of the actual content of the "moral teachings and traditions" that such people claim to believe in.
I mean, you can't simultaneously claim that the Bible forms a moral framework for your worldview—and then reject the majority of the morals in the Bible, on the basis of a secular/enlightenment moral framework that says slavery and genocide are wrong. That's intellectually dishonest.
Qingu on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Colloquially, these are completely uncontroversial statements. If someone said "elves are imaginary" you wouldn't require them to provide evidence or retract their statement.
What always makes me giggle about this is that people go out of their way to say "I'm an agnostic", but quite happily deny the existence of any number of possible but nonexistent animals, such as the unicorn. If I were to insist that I were agnostic with respect to unicorns, people would think me very weird - and I find it doubly humorous, given that unicorns have properties we have observed in other things, whereas God carries a bonus payload of weirdness.
My main claim is that Christianity can be claimed as your religion if you accept the moral teachings and traditions of the religion and claim that the Bible is your "sacred text", regardless of how much you believe about the factuality of the fables/myths/parables inside.
But most Christians don't accept the majority of the moral teachings of the Bible. Many Christians are Biblical illiterate and would be horrified to learn what those moral teachings are. And when it comes down to it, such Christians may claim that the Bible is a "sacred text" but they don't really treat its moral or truth value any differently from any other collection of fables and myths.
This, to me, is a good example of a successful "religion" that has evolved competitively memeistically to survive in a changing world, and that this interpretation is not dishonest.
I disagree; I think it's fundamentally dishonest, or else necessarily ignorant of the actual content of the "moral teachings and traditions" that such people claim to believe in.
I mean, you can't simultaneously claim that the Bible forms a moral framework for your worldview—and then reject the majority of the morals in the Bible, on the basis of a secular/enlightenment moral framework that says slavery and genocide are wrong. That's intellectually dishonest.
But I also reject the teachings of science which tell us that (according to evolutionary theory) only the strong and fit have a place in society in favor of societal morals that tell us we should treat everyone equally and help out those who are unfit to survive on their own.
Also- you are really missing something about the resurrection story. Accepting that Yahweh is a vengeful god who wanted sacrifice, but that he accepts the permanent sacrifice of his son to make up for our sinful nature is a fact completely removed from the story that Noah put all his animals in a boat or that he created the world in a literal seven days.
You can still accept the resurrection story while looking at the other stories (particularly old testament) as illustrative examples of gods power as well as a history of how Yahweh used to be worshipped, and a deist approach (I. E. he set it in motion, but became unhappy with the creation) still can hold and encompass most (if not all) scientific truths.
In addition- Aristotle's ideas about morality are very removed from his ideas of the elements that make up the world, from what I understand.
It must also be constantly thrown out there that, while I am an atheist, I do not enjoy the general "all or none" view taken by both the religious and non-religious camps, which forms the framework of my debate.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Deriving morals from evolution is like trying to derive morals from the colour of the sky. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary fitness is not the colloquial sense of the word at all, and people often get confused by the term.
It all comes spinning back around to the naturalistic fallacy. If you accept the fact of evolution, why do you have to accept that it is a desirable or morally good state of affairs, simply as a consequence of its truth?
If anything, it has shown that protecting the weak and helping others is good for both an individual's survival (including his children) and society as a whole.
I fail to see how saying "Selective natural pressure on alleles that confer specific advantages to a population increase in frequency in that population, and thus alleles that contribute negatively to a population are removed" cannot be morally interpreted as "individuals who have alleles that contribute negatively to society should not be allowed to exist in a society because their deleterious alleles will increase in frequency over a given population".
In fact, eugenics is the exact outgrowth of this idea, and is morally reprehensible.
Posts
I'm not seeing your point.
I know that there are important philosophical, religious, moral issues to be discussed here, I really do, but reading the past few pages I can't help myself from thinking:
"Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it!"
This hair splitting and labeling and sub-labeling has got to stop.
When we see stuff like that U of M Survey (That atheists are the most distrusted group in america), or prop 8, or school boards improving intelligent design, or any number of places where fundamentalist religion has invaded American politics, I think that there is more that We (more on who "we" is in a sec) could be doing to stop this.
Dawkins put it better than I can (I think this is the right video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A
But the thrust of it is this: we need to come out. We need to exist in the public sphere, and let people get to know us and see us and interact with us in civil society as atheists. Just like Gay people have come out and let their own public existence be a (quite effective) political statement. (I'm not trying to compare which group has suffered more, just seeing a useful strategy).
Of course, the question is, who is "we"? there are people who have a general distaste for religion (or who want to see it separated from politics) that are uncomfortable with the term "Atheist." Dawkins himself has proposed "non-theist" and "bright" at various times, but I think that this is the loser's way out.
I think that we ought to rally around the term "Atheist", the term that our society thinks of most negatively, and make it as wide a term as possible. Atheists are atheists, agnostics are atheists, deists are atheists, "Nones" are atheists, secular Jews are atheists, buddhists are atheists, and Christmas-and-Easter catholics are pretty damned close. I see a parallel strategy in what the gay community has done with the word "Queer."
I know this kinda comes off as over-dramatic, but this is something I've felt strongly about for a long time. I'm far from persecuted, but I do see plenty of ill in the world that I think an "Atheist movement" has the potential to affect.
@Arch, I thought you made that position clear before (i.e. religions should evolve), and I thought I had made it clear that I disagree with you. I still see no reason why Christianity and Judaism cannot, or should not, end up like Babylonian or Greek mythology: extinct memes.
I also disagree that religion and science are compatible. The only way they become compatible is if religion adapts by ignoring the swaths of its content and doctrine that contradict science. That's not compatibility, that's memetic predation.
Ah. Your point is well-taken. My only point is that in a very technical sense, stating a belief is different than not having a belief. In real-world terms, you're correct, it's often a distinction without a difference.
I would call it compatibility if the religion still has a large following who are following a more modern interpretation of classical holy texts because they are critically thinking about the works.
Although I do like the phrase "memetic predation", I hardly think this is an example of that force at work here.
agreed. I think that the privileged status that our government gives groups like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts of America would also be a relevant topic.
Are those groups traditionally religious? I do not seem to remember any sort of "Went to Church" merit badge, and rather I got the "Science Fair" merit badge.
Am I wrong?
However, if for example some dude claiming to be the messiah inexplicably appeared and dead people started rising up out of their graves for no apparent reason, then I would be willing to entertain the possibility of the Talmud being based on more than just imaginative fiction.
Belief in something that is completely unfounded and unprovable (Both the existence and nonexistence of god) is a completely irrational way of thinking, and is rejected by most atheists (at least in my experience). This includes myself and all other atheists that I know.
The BSA has some explicit religion as part of their standard curriculum, but much more troubling is their policy of disallowing atheists or homosexuals to serve as a troop leader (or whatever they call them).
For some reason I forgot about that little tidbit.
Then yes- I see your point.
Aristotle's philosophy, like the Bible, was hugely influential and underlies many facets of our current civilization. However, through the ages, philosophers found a number of flaws in the content of his philosophy. Aristotle was wrong about some of the stuff he said about gender, for example.
He was also wrong about the geocentric shape of the universe, and the nature of what stars and planets are.
He was wrong about his four-element system and that the laws of motion and gravity are somehow dependent on stuff being made of earth, fire, wind, or water.
He was wrong about the "unmoved mover" argument for God.
Aristotle was wrong about all sorts of shit, which people now recognize without question. To put it another way, rival positions ate away at the legitimacy and perceived truth-value of Aristotle's positions.
Now, imagine there is some modern group that claims to be "Aristotelians." They accept all the things that modern science says. They accept that the content of Aristotle's writings, as understood "literally," are flawed. But they maintain that Aristotle is "compatible" with modern science—just so long as you interpret it "metaphorically," or take a "critical view" of his writings.
This is euphemistic nonsense, but it's exactly what you're suggesting about Christianity.
What would be an accurate example of "Metaphorical Aristoleian Views"? I am legitimately having a problem trying to come up with an example and I feel it would lend weight to your arguments.
I am not trying to be snide here, but I am really struggling.
Yeah AA also has that whole bit about "surrendering to a higher power".
And also retardedly great publicity for their apparently poor success rates.
Which is, of course, bullshit, and still doesn't conform with modern science.
But it makes about as much sense as trying to describe a standard Mesopotamian humans-from-clay creation myth as a metaphor, or a standard Mesopotamian "reset button" flood myth where the gods pop the bubble of flat-earth creation as a metaphor.
I know it makes you upset when I criticize the position that the silly stuff in the Bible is actually metaphors for less-silly stuff. But it makes just as much sense as claiming Aristotle's mistakes are metaphors. That's why I criticize it. It is dishonest textual interpretation.
The geocentric model is obviously just meant to show how important Earth is.
Not to be confused with Heart, the most pathetic and unfair-to-get-saddled-with-when-other-people-get-to-shoot-tornados element.
I don't know, because I think that is a pretty good example of how you could conceptualize what I am talking about.
You are also misunderstanding my ire. I am upset at your insistence that there can only be one. It may not have been intended as metaphor, but as we began to understand more of the world we can view previous teachings and writings as an extended metaphor for what we now know to be true.
Your argument leans heavily and dangerously into territory that has us ignore any ideas present in religious text completely out of hand because the underlying initial idea for that religion is no longer valid or accepted as true.
Yes, Aristotle's ideas are and were incorrect. But there are still things to be learned in his works, even if he was wrong.
What I am saying is that a Christian who recognizes the inherent flaws in their religious text but still practices Christian traditions and accepts the Bible as their personal sacred book is not intellectually dishonest, and their view is compatible with the modern scientific view you are proposing.
And AA is strictly a religious group. http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf
They're both rather predatory organizations.
--
There are people who understand that their religious ideas are irrational and act that way, much like anime fans know that they cannot defeat the evil power with truth love and friendship but still get giddy over cosplay. For many people, the ceremony and community and occasional imaginary friend (which is just internal debate) is the real point. Really, one of the primary reasons religion is still around is that people have not taken to community centers as well as they should (or it is the CAUSE of this fact, which I suspect). My Buddhist friend goes on trips across the globe twice a year or so to attend festivals, coming back with photos from Paris and London and so forth, and she has a supportive community around her. She's even aware that she's accepted them at least partly because of the benefits, and considering the cool shit she does, it's hard to blame her. But if that was available to everyone on a public level, without having to believe in reincarnation...
Why would you ever interpret Aristotle's mistaken ideas about physics to be "extended metaphors for what we now know to be true"? They aren't!
Aristotle's work, like the Bible, and like every myth, was the earnest attempt to understand the natural world by human beings, working with the culture, technology, and knowledge available to them. But they weren't writing extended metaphors for things they had no idea about. I'm sorry to be harsh, but that's nonsense.
Howso? I never said we should ignore every idea Aristotle proposed. I said we should, and do, reject his ideas that have been disproven by modern science. And then I said that "re-interpreting" these particular mistaken ideas so as to be "metaphors" for things Aristotle had no idea about and never intended to imply is intellectually dishonest.
Yeah. But that's entirely different from saying the wrong things in his works are actually extended metaphors.
But it's compatible in the same way our Aristotelian's views on Aristotle are compatible.
Which is to say, not at all. I understand the word "compatibility" to mean a two-way street. What you're explicitly suggesting is that Christianity is only compatible with modern science if it conforms to modern science, with Christians rejecting anything in their scriptures or traditions that contradicts modern science. This kind of "compatibility" is a euphemism.
Myths have always been understood non-literally. They can also function as templates for storytelling—the Bible's flood myth uses an identical template as earlier Akkadian and Sumerian myths, it just plugs in a few different values for the gods' identity and the moral lesson.
However, when you say something is a metaphor, that doesn't mean it can be a metaphor for anything. It doesn't mean that something written by bronze-age nomads was intended to signify something superficially reminiscent in modern science. This is simply not an honest way to interpret texts, and I think it does violence to the integrity and cohesiveness of the text itself.
Yes, I actually agree with you here, but I am also raising my hackles at your claim that Christianity evolving memetically from a hard religion to a personal philosophy is dishonest.
I am ignoring the Aristotle stuff for many reasons, most of all because he was undertaking his ideas as someone who could be considered a "scientist", as he is widely accepted to have been one of the founders of the modern scientific thought. It was an interesting thought experiment but as I considered it it began to make less sense since his writings have never been intended to be a guide to how people should live their lives, unlike major religions.
The thing we also seem to quibble about is the relative importance of these stories in christianity (flood, genesis, etc) are to the overall message and belief system one must adopt to be considered "Christian".
Yes, the scientific worldview directly undermines some things about Christianity, but my main argument has and will be that those things are not directly integral to the message of the faith. The only miracle a Christian needs to accept is that after three days, Jesus came back to life. In my mine, the rest is just window dressing that can be interpreted as metaphor.
And even then, one could be considered a "Christian" if they followed a large portion of the teachings of Jesus, the Christ and meditated on the accepted Christian holy text (I. E., the Bible)
Why would I want to continue to adhere to a text which I know is wrong? If it's not intellectually dishonest, it's absolutely nuts - clinging to something you know is false for the sake of something, i'm not sure exactly what.
If your point is that maybe the bible has some useful moral fables (like don't eat shellfish) in spite of its factual inaccuracy, i'm OK with that. It's just that useful moral fables don't compel faith; truth does.
Ok, this here actually makes a lot of your argument and problems much more clear to me. I understand your view a lot more now, and I may retract some of my points (even those in the post I just made) after I give this some more thought.
That miracle is meaningless on its own.
My main claim is that Christianity can be claimed as your religion if you accept the moral teachings and traditions of the religion and claim that the Bible is your "sacred text", regardless of how much you believe about the factuality of the fables/myths/parables inside.
This, to me, is a good example of a successful "religion" that has evolved competitively memeistically to survive in a changing world, and that this interpretation is not dishonest.
It is also a boring miracle which has little to do with whether Jesus is divine or not.
In the Babylonian creation myth, the world starts with two beings, Apsu and Tiamat. Apsu is freshwater, Tiamat is saltwater. They have kids, the gods, and standard polytheist generational conflict ensues. The "creation" of the world happens when one of these kids, Marduk, defeats Tiamat in battle and stretches out her corpse to form the oceans of the world and the waters above the sky. Apsu, meanwhile, was taken over by a god named Ea who now runs the underground water supply.
This basic template is repeated in the Bible, sans polytheism. God creates the world by "separating the waters from the waters." He forms a "dome" or "firmament" to hold up the above-sky ocean. The world in the Bible, like the world in previous Mesopotamian myths, is understood as sandwiched, like a bubble, between these two all-encompassing bodies of water. It is much like the underwater kingdom of Hyrule in Wind Waker. And when God floods the world, it's not a regular flood—he "pops" this bubble by "opening the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep." (This is why Noah's ark needed to be sealed in pitch—it was a submarine).
So, this all sounds crazy to us, and not scientific in the least. But put yourself in the shoes of a bronze-age nomad trying to figure out what the sky is. You know that water falls from the sky. You know that large bodies of water are blue. So, logic, there must be an ocean up there. Since oceans just don't float, you know that some domelike structure must be holding it up. Similarly, you can dig into the earth and find freshwater. So you figure there must be an ocean down there too.
The people who came up with the cosmology of Mesopotamian mythology were doing the same thing Aristotle was doing, and vaguely the same thing that scientists do today. They were making inferences based on their observations of the world around them.
Actually, Aristotle, like many philosophers, wrote extensively about morality (though less so than Plato? I haven't actually studied him that much.)
Again, I think you're sort of drawing a false dichotomy here between "religion" and "philosophy." I understand religion as a sub-category of philosophy, one that is concerned with gods. But religion verges in to non-god philosophy (see Deism, pantheism, Zen Buddhism). It's a line in the sand, ultimately.
I agree with your first point—that the line in the sand for "Christianity" ought to be the Resurrection—but not with the second. Which I think you acknowledge below (i.e. you can't just say something is a metaphor for anything.)
Also, the miracle makes no sense without the context of Old Testament mythology. The point of the Resurrection is that it's a sacrifice meant to replace the Old Testament sacrificial system, where you kill animals and burn them for Yahweh to make up for sins, as defined by all the rules of the Old Testament. If you don't believe that Yahweh handed down these rules and that you need to follow them to avoid punishment, there really is no point to Jesus' sacrifice, since he's not "saving" you from anything. But then, I doubt that many "Christians" really consider the underlying theology. Which is a shame, because if they did they probably would realize how ridiculous it is.
I like this definition less because then Jesus is just a philosopher and Christianity is just a philosophical disposition. But like I said, whatever floats your boat.
I disagree; I think it's fundamentally dishonest, or else necessarily ignorant of the actual content of the "moral teachings and traditions" that such people claim to believe in.
I mean, you can't simultaneously claim that the Bible forms a moral framework for your worldview—and then reject the majority of the morals in the Bible, on the basis of a secular/enlightenment moral framework that says slavery and genocide are wrong. That's intellectually dishonest.
What always makes me giggle about this is that people go out of their way to say "I'm an agnostic", but quite happily deny the existence of any number of possible but nonexistent animals, such as the unicorn. If I were to insist that I were agnostic with respect to unicorns, people would think me very weird - and I find it doubly humorous, given that unicorns have properties we have observed in other things, whereas God carries a bonus payload of weirdness.
But I also reject the teachings of science which tell us that (according to evolutionary theory) only the strong and fit have a place in society in favor of societal morals that tell us we should treat everyone equally and help out those who are unfit to survive on their own.
Also- you are really missing something about the resurrection story. Accepting that Yahweh is a vengeful god who wanted sacrifice, but that he accepts the permanent sacrifice of his son to make up for our sinful nature is a fact completely removed from the story that Noah put all his animals in a boat or that he created the world in a literal seven days.
You can still accept the resurrection story while looking at the other stories (particularly old testament) as illustrative examples of gods power as well as a history of how Yahweh used to be worshipped, and a deist approach (I. E. he set it in motion, but became unhappy with the creation) still can hold and encompass most (if not all) scientific truths.
In addition- Aristotle's ideas about morality are very removed from his ideas of the elements that make up the world, from what I understand.
It must also be constantly thrown out there that, while I am an atheist, I do not enjoy the general "all or none" view taken by both the religious and non-religious camps, which forms the framework of my debate.
It all comes spinning back around to the naturalistic fallacy. If you accept the fact of evolution, why do you have to accept that it is a desirable or morally good state of affairs, simply as a consequence of its truth?
Not in the least.
In fact ACTUAL SCIENCE shows that cooperative individuals pass on their genes better than pushy assholes.
I fail to see how saying "Selective natural pressure on alleles that confer specific advantages to a population increase in frequency in that population, and thus alleles that contribute negatively to a population are removed" cannot be morally interpreted as "individuals who have alleles that contribute negatively to society should not be allowed to exist in a society because their deleterious alleles will increase in frequency over a given population".
In fact, eugenics is the exact outgrowth of this idea, and is morally reprehensible.