Thoughts on Atheism

[MaryLupin]

God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.

Interesting concept. I think the same of the word "self." I have always thought that it really isn't a noun but a process and therefore should be a verb.

With respect to god...I might even be able to go with god as a process if it is not a conscious one. That is more like the force of adaptation (evolution), or gravity, or quantum. Anyway something "blind" but fundamental to the way things change and evolve in the universe.

[weepingforloman]

Now we have come to the point where even God can be verbed.

[NikolaiI]

Now we have come to the point where even God can be verbed.

Okay, let's say you go to a stream and see a whirlpool. You go again the next day and see a whirlpool. But it is not the same whirlpool you saw, because the water in it is changing every second. So it's not so much a whirlpool, but a whirlpooling. So instead of a thing, it is better described as an action, and the same is true of all of our things, though less obvious. A tree is a treeing, a house is a housing, and God is a Godding.

Either way, do you find it strange that people seek out others like themselves? I mean, come on - you think atheists go and find churches to go hang out in? Your criticizing believers for being normal - all people seek out those who resemble themselves in some ways. Who goes out and seeks company composed of people fully different from ourselves?

Since when is church closed from non-believers? Lots of atheists go to church.

Secondly, I think you radically underestimate "cultural conditioning" (I'll borrow your term here). Culture is encoded with many, many conventions and assumptions - a large majority of which go unquestioned/unexamined by people. For example - if you were raised in an atheistic home and went to public schools, you were given textbooks that tacitly ASSUMED evolution to be FACT (rather than a theory); as well, turn on your TV: newscasts routinely pass on comments that appear to confirm the factuality of evolution. That's just one example of cultural conditioning - young people grow up assuming evolution to be true because their culture fed to them from the beginning the idea that it was. Ditto for something more trivial like (here we go!) women shaving their legs and underarms: your average US male freaks out about the idea that European women don't see the need to be as obsessive as US women do - and why is that? Are European males less discerning? Or have the US males simply been conditioned to certain ideas about feminine beauty?

Are you sure you know what the difference between theory and hypothesis is? For instance, gravity is "just a theory." But theory and fact are not necessarily in opposition.

[atiguhya padma]

RedZeppelin said:

<Either way, do you find it strange that people seek out others like themselves? I mean, come on - you think atheists go and find churches to go hang out in? Your criticizing believers for being normal - all people seek out those who resemble themselves in some ways. Who goes out and seeks company composed of people fully different from ourselves?>

Firstly you misrepresent pantheism, then you reveal your own stereotypical attitude to atheists: I am a staunch atheist, my favourite cafe is run by christians and I often hang out in churches and cathedrals. You really shouldn't reproach atheists for being stereotypical and then reveal your own stereotypical thinking in the same post (!), after all that's being hypocritical.

Plenty of freethinking broad-minded people seek out those who are very different to themselves. Generally, I find, people gravitate around similar people when they feel insecure or threatened regarding their beliefs or their lifestyle.

I can't believe we are still discussing the "evolution is only a theory" argument. Gravity is only a theory. That the sun will continue to exist tomorrow is only a theory. Where they are similar to the theory of evolution is that, unlike the theory of monotheism, there is bucket loads of evidence to suggest that anyone disbelieving these theories should be regarded as naive, foolish or a crackpot.

[NikolaiI]

Ah..them's fightin' words?

[RobinHood3000]

To quote Alan Watts: "Let me show you the same phenomenon in the dimension of space instead of the dimension of time. Let's ask 'How big is the sun?' Are we going to define the sun as limited by the extent of its fire? That's one possible definition. But we could equally well define the sphere of the sun by the extent of its heat. We could also define sphere of the sun by the extent of its light. And each of these would be reasonable choices, except that it's rather difficult to keep track of the extent of its light, because we are inside it. And therefore we have arbitrarily agreed to define the sun by the limit of its visible fire.

I guess what I get from it is how arbitrary the definition we decide of the sun is. The limit of its visible fire. Why not the limit of its light or heat? If we do that, we have a different way of looking at things, and we keep in mind how the sun is part of every star's light that reaches it, and how we are in fact inside the sun. And just because we are not able to say how large the sun is, in our terms of space, I think it's perfectly reasonable to define the sun by the extent of its light and heat. Why not?

To that, I say "bollocks." Just because something's arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't practical. At any rate, the boundaries Sun is not defined by visibility in any way - it's defined by physical presence. The energy it gives off is no more closely associated to the Sun itself than is the energy I'm using to type this. You may as well consider a squirrel or a cockroach identical extensions of the Sun, because the energy necessary to create them came from the Sun.

If you want to make your point, make it - but frankly, I think the analogy made above is ludicrous. Simply because he says something is a "reasonable definition" does not make it so.

[Redzeppelin]

It is the only uncreated thing in your universe.

Only IF I'm wrong; gues what? If I'm right, He's the only uncreated thing in YOUR universe too.

Many traditions have stories about the creation and/or birth of their gods.

Of this I am aware. That does not mean they are all true. Traditions generally are mutually exclusive in their assertions of truth; either one is right or all of them are wrong.

As an account of reality, pantheism easily makes as much sense as a virgin birth and an uncreated creator.

Problems with pantheism:

1. Because pantheism believes that everything that exists is a part of God, that means we are a part of God. Considering some of the atrocious behavior humans are capable of, this idea contaminates God. As well, nothing can be transcendant if all is a part of God. To be God requires transcendance.

2. Pantheism posits an impersonal God - such a God cannot have a moral will or intelligence. As such, there can be no moral distinctions (supported by pantheism's refusal to recognize oppositions/dualities).

3. Because logic and reason deal with dualitites/oppositions, pantheism sees these ideas as meaningless and non-existent.

4. Pantheism suggest that the universe is eternal, but that would require the existence of actual infinities (only potential infinities can exist in reality).

These things are an act of faith...whether to feel the divine curling with the edge of a leaf as it falls in autumn...or to interpret ecstasy as the touch of god's grace...both are subjective, both have belief/thought systems to back them up (i.e. holy books and sacred stories), both are fundamentally unprovable. Because of that they can only be said to "account for reality" if the basic premises are accepted as true, and pantheists will not accept that god is outside the material world and christians will not accept that it is not. All we can argue (with reason) is whether the system is coherent, whether the system is practicable, or specific facts (i.e. history, translation, textual).

I agree with much of what you said - but the word "coherence" suggest sinterpretation - and that is where we begin to part ways. It is possible for one individual to use his reason/logic and find coherence in something that someone else using his reason/logic dismisses as totally meaningless - because interpretive evaluations ("this is coherent, this is logical") is established (at least in part) by the "frame" from within which we do the interpreting.

Okay, let's say you go to a stream and see a whirlpool. You go again the next day and see a whirlpool. But it is not the same whirlpool you saw, because the water in it is changing every second. So it's not so much a whirlpool, but a whirlpooling. So instead of a thing, it is better described as an action, and the same is true of all of our things, though less obvious. A tree is a treeing, a house is a housing, and God is a Godding.

You're describing a behavioral variation of a thing (water). A whirlpool is a description of water doing a specific action. Water is not an action - it performs actions and is acted upon.

Since when is church closed from non-believers? Lots of atheists go to church.

I never suggested church was "closed" from anybody. Re-read my post.

Are you sure you know what the difference between theory and hypothesis is? For instance, gravity is "just a theory." But theory and fact are not necessarily in opposition.

I didn't suggest they're in opposition - but what I object to is people treating them as if they're synonyms.

Firstly you misrepresent pantheism, then you reveal your own stereotypical attitude to atheists: I am a staunch atheist, my favourite cafe is run by christians and I often hang out in churches and cathedrals. You really shouldn't reproach atheists for being stereotypical and then reveal your own stereotypical thinking in the same post (!), after all that's being hypocritical.

I do not "reproach" atheists for "being" anything - I "reproached" a sterotypical (and inaccurate) presentation of Christian attitudes/behavior/belief. Please read my post carefully: I did not indicate that people with opposing beliefs cannot have interaction - I was confronting the criticism launched against Christians for engaging in groups and social circles of like-minded people. A suggestion was made as if this was some sort of dysfunctional behavior. I corrected that idea.

Plenty of freethinking broad-minded people seek out those who are very different to themselves. Generally, I find, people gravitate around similar people when they feel insecure or threatened regarding their beliefs or their lifestyle.

No: it is human nature to like being around people with whom you share common goals, ideals, beliefs. That's human nature - not a Chrisitian defense mechanism. You are posting here on Lit Net because you share things in common with the other posters - do you spend time on webpages dealing with things that totally disinterest you or that you totally disagree with?

I can't believe we are still discussing the "evolution is only a theory" argument. Gravity is only a theory. That the sun will continue to exist tomorrow is only a theory. Where they are similar to the theory of evolution is that, unlike the theory of monotheism, there is bucket loads of evidence to suggest that anyone disbelieving these theories should be regarded as naive, foolish or a crackpot.

Gravity is here, now for us to examine, experiment with and observe. Abiogenetic evolution is not here, now to examine, experiment with and observe. The "evidence" you tout is subject to interpretive "frames" - and it can point to a number of potentially valid conclusions. I let go the idea a long time ago that I could prove that God exists - why don't evolutionists show the same understanding and admit that ultimately, they cannot prove their position either?

Nice ad hominem. Care to try and deal with me without insulting me? That would be refreshing.

[MaryLupin]

Only IF I'm wrong; gues what? If I'm right, He's the only uncreated thing in YOUR universe too.

And if I am right you are living and preaching a delusion and honestly, I would rather be punished for following the evidence (that--in the possible scenario of Its reality--had been put here in [if I do say so myself] a rather mean spirited trick unworthy of my pet cockroach) than be deluded.

Problems with pantheism:

1. Because pantheism believes that everything that exists is a part of God, that means we are a part of God. Considering some of the atrocious behavior humans are capable of, this idea contaminates God. As well, nothing can be transcendant if all is a part of God. To be God requires transcendance.

Only if you think that our "atrocious" behavior is not, in part, what defines "human." If the totality of what it means to be human is to be a "Dependent, rational animal" then god is also these things and there is no "contamination." There is even evidence of this in the bible since all the ones killed in the flood, the devastation of all the people at Sodom and Gommorah, the mass murder of the priests of Baal, the drowning of a horde of Egyptian soldiers, etc etc is really rather like the "atrocious behavior humans are capable of." This god is clearly not above a bit of violence.

2. Pantheism posits an impersonal God - such a God cannot have a moral will or intelligence. As such, there can be no moral distinctions (supported by pantheism's refusal to recognize oppositions/dualities).

Yes in the sense that the world is recognized to be made for itself's sake and not for humans. Many pantheistic deities had a rather large component of intelligence...i.e. the creation of fire, of tools, of cloth, even story all can be attributed to a variety of earth gods.. As for moral will, well I suppose what you mean to talk about is the inclusion of the "thou shalts" in the developing Judeo-Christian tradition. Most pantheistic traditions had stories that talked about human behavior and provided stories and models for myriad life situations. They were/are explanations of why we are this way and what one can do about it. The moral code of a region was traditionally based and separate from the worship. This is a strength of pantheism not a weakness. The devastation wrought by Christianity throughout the last couple of millennia is directly related to the audacity of the idea that priests think they can run a country.

3. Because logic and reason deal with dualitites/oppositions, pantheism sees these ideas as meaningless and non-existent.

There is a huge body of evidence that dualities etc are fundamental to all human thought and they show up over and over in all faiths of all sorts. What pantheism can do is count past the number 2. Again this is a strength.

4. Pantheism suggest that the universe is eternal, but that would require the existence of actual infinities (only potential infinities can exist in reality).

Pantheism, like all human faith, relates time to what we can understand, i.e. the human life span. So even 100,000 years seems like an eternity. Even today, when we have the capacity to see the evidence of much longer time spans, the great extinctions of the Permian and the Ordovician, for example, we still can't handle it so we postulate that no, the world began 4004 years ago (and compound the error by measuring it in "begats"). So pantheism is no different. The sense that the seasons go on and on, the knowledge that the seasons were turning when their grandparents were here (as far back as most people can really imagine without a good historical knowledge) is translated into, the seasons will turn and turn even when my grandchildren have children of their own. (This is eternity, because it is about as far forward as we are capable of really imagining.) So the suggestion that the world's vegetative cycle is eternal in no way suggests what is today meant by "infinities." Rather is bespeaks both human mental limitations and human hope.

[Redzeppelin]

And if I am right you are living and preaching a delusion and honestly, I would rather be punished for following the evidence (that--in the possible scenario of Its reality--had been put here in [if I do say so myself] a rather mean spirited trick unworthy of my pet cockroach) than be deluded.

I'm OK with the risk because it doesn't have eternal consequences. The delusion can go both ways; you speak of "evidence" as if it is self-explanatory and beyond question; that is not so: some is, some isn't. Gravity's pretty obvious, but not everything we take as "evidence" is so clear cut in its interpretation. God does not put contrary evidence here - we look at things that point to His existence and come up with an alternative explanation.

Only if you think that our "atrocious" behavior is not, in part, what defines "human." If the totality of what it means to be human is to be a "Dependent, rational animal" then god is also these things and there is no "contamination." There is even evidence of this in the bible since all the ones killed in the flood, the devastation of all the people at Sodom and Gommorah, the mass murder of the priests of Baal, the drowning of a horde of Egyptian soldiers, etc etc is really rather like the "atrocious behavior humans are capable of." This god is clearly not above a bit of violence.

No: God is the only non-contingent creature in the universe - He cannot be "dependent" and still be God. Illogical.

Please don't ask me to accept the atrocities of genocide and child rape as part of human nature.

You speak as if violence is some sort of evil to be avoided at all costs - and as if human life should be maintained at all costs. Violence has its uses - I assume if you were in danger of being killed and I had the power to save you (through violent, potentially deadly force) that you'd like me to do so. (For the record, I would). Secondly, people seem to have a problem with the idea that the Creator of all decided what should happen to a number of His creations. He who creates life and knows all has the prerogative to end life for His reasons (which, if He is as described, must be good reasons - though we will probably [lacking the complete picture that He is privileged to] not like the choice because it disagrees with our values). If we look at God as no more than some glorified human being, then we'll object to His decisions - but He is the Creator of all. I don't understand many of His choices - but I'd be hesitant to believe in a Divine Being of whom I understood completely.

Yes in the sense that the world is recognized to be made for itself's sake and not for humans. Many pantheistic deities had a rather large component of intelligence...i.e. the creation of fire, of tools, of cloth, even story all can be attributed to a variety of earth gods.. As for moral will, well I suppose what you mean to talk about is the inclusion of the "thou shalts" in the developing Judeo-Christian tradition. Most pantheistic traditions had stories that talked about human behavior and provided stories and models for myriad life situations. They were/are explanations of why we are this way and what one can do about it. The moral code of a region was traditionally based and separate from the worship. This is a strength of pantheism not a weakness. The devastation wrought by Christianity throughout the last couple of millennia is directly related to the audacity of the idea that priests think they can run a country.

Describing how people are and how they can respond to human behavior is different from what they ought to do.

The moral code IS worship; the bible states in a number of places that God desires "obedience more than sacrifices." Many strains of Christianity see moral choice as a way of worshiping God because it demonstrates a love for God to do as He has commanded. If my child does what I ask even though I know he doesn't like what he's been asked to do, I see that as an act of love and respect.

Priests ought not run a country - but they should be consulted in terms of morality and judgment. Christianity has done its damage - but pantheism lacks the necessary moral strength to do what needs to be done.

There is a huge body of evidence that dualities etc are fundamental to all human thought and they show up over and over in all faiths of all sorts. What pantheism can do is count past the number 2. Again this is a strength.

I know what I've read - and what I've read suggests that pantheism does not acknowledge opposition and duality - things either are or are not.

Pantheism, like all human faith, relates time to what we can understand, i.e. the human life span. So even 100,000 years seems like an eternity. Even today, when we have the capacity to see the evidence of much longer time spans, the great extinctions of the Permian and the Ordovician, for example, we still can't handle it so we postulate that no, the world began 4004 years ago (and compound the error by measuring it in "begats"). So pantheism is no different. The sense that the seasons go on and on, the knowledge that the seasons were turning when their grandparents were here (as far back as most people can really imagine without a good historical knowledge) is translated into, the seasons will turn and turn even when my grandchildren have children of their own. (This is eternity, because it is about as far forward as we are capable of really imagining.) So the suggestion that the world's vegetative cycle is eternal in no way suggests what is today meant by "infinities." Rather is bespeaks both human mental limitations and human hope.

You've ignored what I posted: pantheism sees the universe as eternal and unchanging; that is impossible due to the impossibility of actual infinities.

I appreciate your reason responses, but pantheism cannot account for God properly; it denigrates God into a dependent, changing being who is non-transcendent, non-moral, non-intelligent and part of His own creation. That entity cannot be God.

[MaryLupin]

Please don't ask me to accept the atrocities of genocide and child rape as part of human nature.

But, Red, it is a part of human nature.

Describing how people are and how they can respond to human behavior is different from what they ought to do.

To differentiate between these is commonly human. What matters is where one puts the authority for the "oughts." I place it squarely on species survival. For example, if we want to survive then we need to live on a planet whose ecosystem can support our life form. We "ought" to manage our desires in such a way that we do not destroy that which is necessary for long-term species survival. Another example: If we want to live in a world where groups of people don't routinely slaughter other groups of people then we "ought" to teach ourselves and our children about our "animal" natures so that when rage/fear/greed/lust/etc hits we know how to manage to feelings.

A pertinent aside: I taught in a part of Idaho for a few terms. The class did an assignment on teen pregnancy rates. What the data showed was that, by far, the highest rates of teen pregnancy occurred in schools that refused to teach sex education and instead preached celibacy. Ignorance of our "animal" nature does not make it go away. In fact it makes it more powerful.

People have terrible feelings as well as ones of grace. Trying to convince people that the desire to cause mayhem is not intrinsically theirs but rather is like a kind of possession by some mystical being, is tantamount to preaching celibacy in the young. One results in pregnancy. The other in violence.

Priests ought not run a country - but they should be consulted in terms of morality and judgment.

I'll even go along with this if the panel includes witches, pantheists, jews, muslims, buddhists, animists, christians, jains, taoists, etc etc

Christianity has done its damage - but pantheism lacks the necessary moral strength to do what needs to be done.

What pantheism lacks is the concept that it knows best. This is a good thing. Rather than answers (which Christianity tries to give) pantheism is structured to give pertinent questions. A thousand answers are far less valuable as a tool for growth than one good question.

I would rather enjoy a governing body that was more interested in the one good question than forcing me to live with (yet again) the consequences of their last 100 answers.

it denigrates God into a dependent, changing being who is non-transcendent, non-moral, non-intelligent and part of His own creation. That entity cannot be God.

It only feels like denigration because you see changeable as less valuable than absolute. Life is about change. Death is absolute. I prefer life and change and think it has greater value with respect to humanity. In this system the non-transcendent must be god and the transcendent cannot be god.

[atiguhya padma]

People often quote the horrendous acts of god in the OT as the basis of an argument for claiming that god doesn't walk the talk. Quite right too. But, the worst part of it is, that if you believe in god, then you somehow have to reconcile your love for an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing creator with the knowledge that he didn't bother to help millions of people in the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, the Stalinist Terror, WWI + II, as well as the millions that have died from the influenza epidemic of the early 20th C and other natural disasters. It seems that god doesn't set a very good example (other than to collaborators, conspirators, despots, mass murderers etc).

Redzeppelin said:

<He who creates life and knows all has the prerogative to end life for His reasons (which, if He is as described, must be good reasons - though we will probably [lacking the complete picture that He is privileged to] not like the choice because it disagrees with our values). If we look at God as no more than some glorified human being, then we'll object to His decisions - but He is the Creator of all. I don't understand many of His choices - but I'd be hesitant to believe in a Divine Being of whom I understood completely.>

An intended good or moral action, is so wholly because of what is being intended and done, not because of who is doing it. I see no reason to believe that a creator has a moral right to do what he or she wants with his or her creation. Were a scientist to create a human life form without resort to 'natural processes', I do not believe they would have the right to terminate that life whenever they want.

I don't see why omniscience and creativity give you a prerogative to murder, or act as an accomplice to murder. Your argument seems to rest on god being as he is described in that anthology of primitive religious writings known as the bible. So god's murders are justifiable based on what someone wrote nearly 2000 years ago and your own ignorance. Not exactly encouraging.

[MaryLupin]

I don't see why omniscience and creativity give you a prerogative to murder, or act as an accomplice to murder.

Fundamentally, I think, god has the "prerogative to murder" because god is considered a priori infallible and since all humans consider murder wrong (a failing), those who carry the nonanalytic belief in infallibility must somehow reconcile god's poor behavior with our social stance on taking a life outside the law. Therefore. when god murders the believers say it cannot have committed murder, so it was something else. Then they go looking for the "something else." Of course this leads to the mental shenanigans and gymnastics of apologia but, hey, what a way to spend a life.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Fundamentally, I think, god has the "prerogative to murder" because god is considered a priori infallible and since all humans consider murder wrong (a failing), those who carry the nonanalytic belief in infallibility must somehow reconcile god's poor behavior with our social stance on taking a life outside the law. Therefore. when god murders the believers say it cannot have committed murder, so it was something else. Then they go looking for the "something else." Of course this leads to the mental shenanigans and gymnastics of apologia but, hey, what a way to spend a life.

Here, still in work, are my thoughts on the last part of your post:

There are those who need to be mad,
who drank of sanity from the breast
of their mothers and it left them
pale, feeble and depressed.

Instead, they sought for the meat
of insanity, raw if necessary
but twice or thrice chewed over
by preference, and for secret books,
arcana, the more obscure
the better, the more
precisely, authoritatively mad,
the more worthy to be trusted.

Agoraphobes in the face
of the unmarked field
of mental freedom
they longed for closets
and corridors, aisles
that grew narrower
as they twisted and turned
back upon themselves,
codicils and corrections
of amendments and
revisions of revisions of revisions...

[PrinceMyshkin]

Bravo! But you are attempting to debate with people who, I believe, cannot afford to lose. The salient questions to pose to those who cannot or will not imagine what it might be NOT to believe as they do, are

1) When and why did you choose to believe?

2) Could you personally survive without believing?

But you are unlikely to get an answer to 1) that is not circular, something like: I believe because it is true.

[MaryLupin]

Agoraphobes in the face
of the unmarked field
of mental freedom
they longed for closets
and corridors, aisles
that grew narrower
as they twisted and turned
back upon themselves,
codicils and corrections
of amendments and
revisions of revisions of revisions...

What a startlingly evocative stanza. As well as it marks some theists I know, I must admit the first faces that jumped to my mind were hard core academics, particularly hermeneuticists. Strong poem in the making.