A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

[Charles Darnay]

PREFACE:
This is not a religious debate, nor is it meant to be. Please do not make it one. I mean this as a philosophic discourse wherein the opinions of all are encouraged/welcome.

PREAMBLE:
Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism. I think we can also say without much debate that “reactionary ideas qua reactionary ideas” are doomed to failure. Example: The Protestant Reformation was successful not because Luther et al said “we hate Catholics, Catholics suck, go away” but because they said “here is what we believe in – here are my points.” Whereas the Counter-Reformation did not succeed outside of the world of art because it existed only as a reactionary idea.
__________________________________________________ _

So the question is: does Atheism (as it is generally viewed) exist as anything but a reactionary idea? Could it? I suppose the first issue is that Atheism is still in the stage that 16th century Protestants were in: where many groups are using the idea to suit themselves as they see it. I have seen the Satre-esque Atheist brand, the “using evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of belief” Atheist brand, and the revival of Renaissance Humanism removed from any context of God Atheist brand – the first focusing on independent power, the second focusing on the physical world, the third as spiritual as any “religion”. But the only thing that unifies these groups (and I’m sure there are more) is that initial reactionary idea.
So………I want to know: if you are an Atheist, what are your “positive points” – meaning points that go beyond reactionary ideas. And for theists out there – do you see any points in Atheism beyond the reactionary ideas? Should there be “the Atheist Bible/manifesto/whatever” or will this inevitably create the same problems that spawned it in the first place? Is Atheism doomed to be a reactionary idea until something completely different comes to take it up?

[cafolini]

PREFACE:
This is not a religious debate, nor is it meant to be. Please do not make it one. I mean this as a philosophic discourse wherein the opinions of all are encouraged/welcome.

PREAMBLE:
Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism. I think we can also say without much debate that “reactionary ideas qua reactionary ideas” are doomed to failure. Example: The Protestant Reformation was successful not because Luther et al said “we hate Catholics, Catholics suck, go away” but because they said “here is what we believe in – here are my points.” Whereas the Counter-Reformation did not succeed outside of the world of art because it existed only as a reactionary idea.
__________________________________________________ _

So the question is: does Atheism (as it is generally viewed) exist as anything but a reactionary idea? Could it? I suppose the first issue is that Atheism is still in the stage that 16th century Protestants were in: where many groups are using the idea to suit themselves as they see it. I have seen the Satre-esque Atheist brand, the “using evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of belief” Atheist brand, and the revival of Renaissance Humanism removed from any context of God Atheist brand – the first focusing on independent power, the second focusing on the physical world, the third as spiritual as any “religion”. But the only thing that unifies these groups (and I’m sure there are more) is that initial reactionary idea.
So………I want to know: if you are an Atheist, what are your “positive points” – meaning points that go beyond reactionary ideas. And for theists out there – do you see any points in Atheism beyond the reactionary ideas? Should there be “the Atheist Bible/manifesto/whatever” or will this inevitably create the same problems that spawned it in the first place? Is Atheism doomed to be a reactionary idea until something completely different comes to take it up?

There is no question that atheism is a reactionary idea. But I think it is past tense and fully overcome. What it proposes at the root is precisely what cannot be sustained independently apart from the entanglement with religion.
In mentioning the protestant revolution there was not much reaction on the part of the Lutherans. The latter found a way to overcome slavery (the Roman yoke and work duties) by postulating grace vs. work. It was a step forward in the evolution of religion in the sense that as they postulated it (in the struggle for power) only God could save anyone, for whatever reason, but by grace alone. The minister no longer had a direct connection to the will of God (acted more as a facilitator to the understanding of the books, and few sacraments were left standing).
Going forward to the situation of today of both Protestantism and Atheism, the evolutionary current is in the hands of science: It is no longer justified to confront humanistic studies with scientific studies. Humanity in its two dimensions has been overcome and we move on. We can no longer discuss humanism or anything related, like philosophy, religion, atheism, etc. but within a historical perspective. Of course the inertia of the cultural entanglements will go on with Christianity as much as with any other form of belief system, but it will never go back to be of gobal consequence.

[Darcy88]

I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.

I personally see the "Science revolution" as reactionary. Since there is much relied on theories and not empiricism at all. It seems that there is more theorizing than observing.

[cafolini]

I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.

The point, Darcy, is that anything pro-science does no longer need any defense or philosophical consideration. Of course you will always have the quackers postulating science as compatible with religion. It's futile to respond to such aberrations. One of the funny things of late was a group trying to prove scientifically that the Jews crossed the Red Sea because God parted the waters with high winds that mysteriously did not carry the Jews away as they crossed. Then God stops the wind and the Red Sea traps the persecuting Egyptian army. And there are all kinds of maniacs thinking they are using science. Let them be. They are inoffensive. And they are extremely funny when you think about it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll answer by saying what I mean when I say I'm an atheist. I don't believe there is a God. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible--I just don't know, and from what I've seen, I'm inclined to think there is no God. I used to say I'm agnostic (and sometimes still do because it seems so much less pot-stirring), but that really isn't right. It is partly reactionary, I guess, since I tried to believe in God and couldn't.

I'll also say this: I follow no atheist manifesto/bible. I have my own definition that happens to be along the lines of many other, but not all, atheists.

I also say I'm anti-religious, which is different than being atheist, because this has nothing to do with God. This means I'm against organized religions, plain and simple. Now this is completely reactzionary.

[Jack of Hearts]

Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism.

This reader assumes you made this claim because there seems to be monotheism and polytheism throughout human history. And then, about 700 BC comes Thales who proposes an arche- apparently he just wasn't content to think that the explanation "Gods did it!" was good enough to account for everything anymore.

And a tenet of secular humanism is that neither should you. So there's bias in the rhetoric. Why not call it 'evolutionary' instead of 'reactionary' (haha, see, we can have fun with it); evolutionary in the sense that, as human kind develops, we are destined to be Godless (and if you think there's no pattern that could show this, consider how religion in the western world has dwindled since Descartes published Meditations on First Philosophy).

But it's easy to draw the conclusion that Atheism is reactionary because religion/magic/etc was here first. Maybe these things were just the best explanations people had at the time. But the more people advance themselves in terms of critical thinking, science and philosophy, the more it's out with the old and in with the new.

It's easy to call Atheism reactionary because a lot of people who practice it are, themselves, reacting to anger about the world around them. This reader is not an atheist, but he knows a few. And they're mostly mad at either 'being lied to' about the existence of a deity/authenticity of a holy book, or they're pissed that other people are sheeplike (which probably grounds itself in something personal as well) or 'holding back advancement of mankind', etc. Some people are just self-righteous, regardless of any beliefs. Atheism is becoming more and more affiliated with these things.

So, this reader thinks atheism itself isn't inherently a reaction to anything, it's more of an evolution of mankind. It's just some of the people who practice it that are reactionary.





J

[Charles Darnay]

The reason I made the claim was to stress the "generally viewed" part. While I do not disagree with your distinction of "evolutionary" over "reactionary" - I don't think it's a popular view (maybe it should be)....

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Be careful, guys. If this thread gets too interesting it will surely be locked.

[JuniperWoolf]

I used to say I'm agnostic (and sometimes still do because it seems so much less pot-stirring), but that really isn't right.

I don't even define myself as anything anymore. If anyone asks me what my religious beliefs are, I'll usually tell them that I'm "devoutly apathetic." If you simply say that you're "agnostic" or "apathetic," some people see that as a conversion invitation, so I like to throw the term "devout" in there to let them know that I don't want to hear it (and sometimes I'll tell them that I worship the snake god Apophis just to **** with people).

I also say I'm anti-religious, which is different than being atheist, because this has nothing to do with God. This means I'm against organized religions, plain and simple.

Ditto. I'll keep it off the boards, but I'm not ashamed to admit it.

[Theunderground]

I think this is a very astute distinction. I myself was concerned that most movements are intially reactionary (which is fine.) but then over time fail to throw away this reactionary mood. I mean how pitiful to define oneself by either for or against god. I dont want to know what you are against,what are you for? This is why atheism,humanism,naturalism and satanism suffer by virtue of their negativity and their acccruing of dogmas,creeds and frozen defintions over time. First and foremost i define myself by what i stand for,what are my values,what i am opposed to (though important.) is somewhat secondary.And in fact what is more important than defining or talking is 'doing your values',so to speak.
I myself follow my emotions,my personal insight,my values and my human apsirations,i feel that is enough to define myself. I am oppsed to whatever stops me from fulfilling my aspirations but i focus on the positive not the negative.

[YesNo]

Most people are atheists with respect to specific Gods. If none come to mind, try Zeus. More earnestly, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah. Jews and Muslims are atheists with respect to Jesus. Other people are atheists with respect to all three of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic Gods.

Sometimes these atheists promote other Gods or alternative philosophies instead. When they do, they are no longer reactionaries, because they now have something positive to support.

The atheists I hear on these forums seem primarily opposed to all three of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic Gods, but they haven't found anything to promote in their place. The arguments they have with Christians are their way of breaking away from the religious culture they were born into.

Some will become Buddhists, because they hear Buddhists worship no God. Others will start practicing yoga or some other meditative or self-help discipline sometimes influenced by people such as Deepak Chopra. Consciousness becomes the God-replacement and mindfulness the worship. Somewhere in this category is where I would be.

Others will try to use science as a justification for their atheism and reject in theory the existence of any kind of God and generally insist that consciousness is derivative from matter-energy rather than the other way around. This would be the atheism that I disagree with. The main reason I reject this is because the science that would justify such atheism had its high point around the 1800s and I see it being replaced.

[Darcy88]

My first philosophy professor said he takes issue with most self-proclaimed agnostics. He says the word denotes not one who is not ultimately assured of either the existence or non existence of God, but, rather, someone who sees the evidence as 50/50, equal on both sides and pointing to neither conclusion.

[Charles Darnay]

My first philosophy professor said he takes issue with most self-proclaimed agnostics. He says the word denotes not one who is not ultimately assured of either the existence or not existence of God, but, rather, someone who sees the evidence as 50/50, equal on both sides and pointing to neither conclusion.

I agree with this sentiment, though I would not phrase it in this way. Agnosticism has always struck as "I don't know enough and so I don't want to exert my own opinion" - which in certain cases is fine, but when dealing with a belief system I think it's better to take the time to know where you stand. This does not mean you have to be either monotheist/atheist - you could believe in any number of things, but it is worth it to have a belief.

(Of course, this applies solely to spirituality and not the concept of organized religions. As has been stated, to be "against god" is different than "against religion"

[Darcy88]

Also, being an atheist doesn't mean that one is necessarily against the idea of God. I wish there was a God. Like Sarte I feel in my heart a void where God ought to be. I've tried to believe. Just can't do it. I've read too much Nietzsche and have always been a skeptic to the core. If there's a God I fail to see his reasoning in making faith so insurmountable a challenge, in situating himself beyond this unbridgable gulf. It smacks of indifference.