Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

[OrphanPip]

Among Jews, taking the Bible literally word-for-word, without interpretation, has never been the norm.

That's fine but they have not been in the majority in Europe, and the fact is that most European interpretations of the Bible have taken large swaths of the Bible as literal fact.

Also nice false dichotomy: "Besides the fact that much of what you can take away from the Bible metaphorically is either entirely irrelevant to how we should live or quite easily up to debate and that in itself raises the question of why we should care about what the Bible means."

It assumes for example that literature need teach morals, but of course, literature does more than just proscribe, it describes. It's mimesis. For example, take Genesis 1. It's not the literal creation that matters, but the symbolism behind that is interesting and still relevant.

No it doesn't assume that literature need teach morals, it assumes that when literature is subjective that any morals it does teach are up to debate and thus the work's importance for issues of morality is moot. My central point was that the Bible is not useful as a tool for proscribing moral tales. I don't disagree that the Bible can tell us plenty about how the Hebrews viewed the world, but I think that is something entirely irrelevant when it comes to how we should live today. I stand by the point.

The symbolism:

1) The universe is orderly.

2) human beings are different than other animals in our ability to think and reason.

These are descriptive elements that I think are certainly relevant to how we view ourselves today. It's not telling someone to do anything. It's instead describing what the essential characteristics of the world and human beings are, which I think are actually pretty accurate.

I say so what, we could get the same sense from any number of ancient writing. This is just a product of how humanity thinks, not of any special quality of the Bible. I also think both those points are entirely debatable, and we should not take them at face value.

Even the proscriptive parts like, "Be fruitful and multiply" have a very strong resemblance to the evolutionary imperative to continually reproduce and pass on our genes.

Eh, I think that's the anthropic fallacy. The "evolutionary imperative" is just a product of evolution, nor is it universal or even justifying the proscriptive parts.

One, of course, could raise the same objections about The Iliad or even Shakespeare. But our morality and ideas have moved so far beyond these works. Do we still fight wars? Are soldiers still kept long terms away from home? Do people still choose bravery and are awarded purple hearts over keeping in the back lines, doing their time in the service, and going home to spend a long happy life with their family (Achilles' dilemma)?

I would raise the same points if someone tried to use Shakespeare to justify trying to deny me the right to marry or adopt, or tried to justify putting me in jail. The Bible has been used for those things in the past. I would tell someone they're being quite ridiculous if they think there is something special about the ideas in Shakespeare.

It's profoundly ignorant to pretend ancient literature whether its the Bible, the Iliad, or Shakespeare is incapable of speaking to us today and our issues today.

It's not about its incapability to have common elements with us today, it's the idea that somehow these elements are profound or special, or that they can be justifications for telling others how they can live.

[Drkshadow03]

Orphanpip,

I agree we should raise questions if someone is trying to deny another's rights by reading Shakespeare. Nevertheless, I wouldn't agree that Shakespeare magically loses its literary value or its ability to tell us about life and his wonderful insight into people's behaviors and desires should a cult form around Shakespeare sometime in the near or far future (interestingly I had an idea to write a SF story with that very premise).

As for your points about subjectivity, all reactions to literature are partially subjective. Literature informs our morality in a more roundabout way by helping us think through life by holding a mirror up to it (mimesis) and engaging characters that are themselves reflections of us (a collective us) in a situation that matches issues in our own lives, usually in an exaggerated way. But it rarely ever says, "do this." I realize the Bible at times does say, "Do this." Nevertheless, it doesn't always and one should try and have a more sophisticated approach to reading it, than just, "Wow, people are 878 years old in this story, that's absurd because people don't really grow that old" and then think they said something intelligent.

The Bible can still offer a basis of good morals that are relevant to living in the modern world: the golden rule, helping out your neighbors, being kind to strangers, etc. I think all of these are good values that are found in the Bible. I would agree none of these rules are exclusive to the Bible, and yes, other parts in the Bible contradict them at times. Still, it's one route towards those values among many. I realize this speaks to your point that the book is so subjective that one can cherrypick as they please for good or bad. Nevertheless, I was raised Jewish, and I consider those values to be an authentic part and a reflection of my upbringing in that religion-culture.

[Varenne Rodin]

I have to say, I love this discussion. This is very mentally stimulating.

[YesNo]

I think it's irrelevant whether the New Atheist read the Bible literally, misunderstand it, or are mean to believers. They still fill a valuable social role of being in vocal opposition to religion and as active advocates for secularism.

The idea that atheist are only concerned with the Bible is nonsense also, I am far more concerned with the vast injustices inflicted by Islam. It just so happens that Buddhist don't seem to be actively involved in trying to **** with my life. Christian and Islamic fundamentalism stands as a real threat to me if their ideas manage to take hold where I live, so I just happen to be more concerned with them.

I think I mentioned that atheists seem only concerned with Christians and not with other religious traditions. From what you say, I can see why that may be the case: Christians are the ones most in your face on the other side. So I stand corrected. Christians can be very annoying.

[Alexander III]

I think that to eaither strongly believe that there is a god, or that there is no god; is naive. Quite frankly there could be a god just as likley as there could be no god. And then the irony is that that god, if he does exists, will be so different to our notions of god that we would be unable of realizing that it was a god, god may seem more like no-god than our imaginations on the nature of god.

And I think we often forget the limitations of science. Science is a human product and thus its limitation is mankind, it can go only so far as man can take it. And if we consider how small and short lived we are compared to the universe and existence which is infinite and eternal, well then a prokaryotic cell is just as likely to understand Human society as we are to understand the true and essential nature of the universe, reality and god.


* My entire post is made with the sentiments that God and Religion are two separate entities which should not be confused.

(I made this post in another sub-section on litnet but I thought it was relevant here as well)

[YesNo]

I think that to eaither strongly believe that there is a god, or that there is no god; is naive. Quite frankly there could be a god just as likley as there could be no god. And then the irony is that that god, if he does exists, will be so different to our notions of god that we would be unable of realizing that it was a god, god may seem more like no-god than our imaginations on the nature of god.

I like to think of the issue as whether one experiences the universe as "friendly", "indifferent" or "unfriendly" rather than whether the person believes a God exists or not.

Alternatively, one could ask which is true: (1) Your body has consciousness, or (2) Your consciousness has a body.

Edit:

Personally, I think my consciousness has at the moment a body rather than my body has consciousness. That could be developed into either a theistic or atheistic theology. I also think the universe is "friendly".

I suspect that both Christians and atheists would likely say that their bodies have consciousness. The atheists would say this consciousness is destroyed upon death. The Christians would say it is not, but they need a God to save them from the consequences of this. Depending on whether they believe in "devils", the Christians might say the universe is both "friendly" and "unfriendly", but I would expect the atheists to say it is "indifferent" or random.

[Ecurb]

I would raise the same points if someone tried to use Shakespeare to justify trying to deny me the right to marry or adopt, or tried to justify putting me in jail. The Bible has been used for those things in the past. I would tell someone they're being quite ridiculous if they think there is something special about the ideas in Shakespeare.
.

I'll grant that the Bible has been used as a justification for oppression. However, "The Bible" is also a symbol for "traditional (Christian) morals". After all, Christians no longer refrain from eating shellfish.

It's reasonable to rail against the oppression of traditional moral codes. It is also reasonable to respect them. The notion that any of US can (given our brilliant liberal values and scientific knowledge) do better is questionable. We think that where we disagree with Christian values we are right (obviously, we wouldn't disagree if we DIDN'T think we were right), but, like Lenin and Stalin, we may have our own moral blind spots of which we are unaware.

In addition, it seems to me that anti-Christianity is a form of self hatred. I don't see many people railing against Greek Mythology, or Buddhism, or despising Asgaard. OrphanPip is correct in asserting that for modern Westerners these dead or Eastern faiths offer no threat, but Christianity does. However, Christianity also offers us Westerners OUR OWN mythology, that speaks to us out of our own traditions; out of the other art and literature with which we are familiar; out of our own peculiar moral values.

Some atheists disparage God by calling Him a human invention. But even if God is a human invention, He has made us, just as we have made Him. This may seem confusing, but think of (as just one example) language. No doubt people invented and developed language. But language also invented and developed us: without it we would be very different animals. Same with God. God DID make us -- just like it says in the bible -- albeit in an indirect way.

I remember when my son was first born, his mom and I visited my parents in Chicago for Christmas. My son was not two months old, and one day his mother and I went to the Chicago Art Institute. It was the first time she had left my son for more than a couple of hours.

Every time she saw paintings of Baby Jesus (and there are lots of them), she started lactating. I remember thinking that the Christian Christmas myth suggests that on one Christmas a child was born who would save mankind from its sins, and grant us all eternal life. ALL parents feel our own children will save us from our sins and grant us eternal life. The myth makes an archetype out of that universal feeling.

Merry Christmas!

[OrphanPip]

I'll grant that the Bible has been used as a justification for oppression. However, "The Bible" is also a symbol for "traditional (Christian) morals". After all, Christians no longer refrain from eating shellfish.

Please, the Bible IS used as a justification for oppression, this is not a thing of the past. The only reason its effects are limited is because we have internalized the ideas of secularism, and in many cases have institutionalized them.

It's reasonable to rail against the oppression of traditional moral codes. It is also reasonable to respect them. The notion that any of US can (given our brilliant liberal values and scientific knowledge) do better is questionable. We think that where we disagree with Christian values we are right (obviously, we wouldn't disagree if we DIDN'T think we were right), but, like Lenin and Stalin, we may have our own moral blind spots of which we are unaware.

Unrelated, merely because some things in the Bible can be reasonable does not justify it's status as a moral guide. What good is any sort of moral compass if it only occasionally steers us in the right direction.

In addition, it seems to me that anti-Christianity is a form of self hatred. I don't see many people railing against Greek Mythology, or Buddhism, or despising Asgaard. OrphanPip is correct in asserting that for modern Westerners these dead or Eastern faiths offer no threat, but Christianity does. However, Christianity also offers us Westerners OUR OWN mythology, that speaks to us out of our own traditions; out of the other art and literature with which we are familiar; out of our own peculiar moral values.

Yes, a mythology that tells us we are sinful, that has lead to hundreds years of very real oppression against people like me. Clearly, I should be willing to forgive that nonsense because of pretty paintings. Moreover, the idea that the Bible is not an adequate moral guide and is dangerous when it is taken seriously in that way is not mutually exclusive from the idea that it s culturally significant. The point that Christianity has influenced Christians is moot. It's tautological to argue that Christianity should be important because it's important to those influenced by Christianity.

And what does it say to argue that it is our traditions, that there is a universal Western tradition that Christianity speaks to. Does a book that condemns me for who I sleep with speak to me the same way it speaks to you. If I reject the Bible as a meaningful text does it make me less Western?

Some atheists disparage God by calling Him a human invention. But even if God is a human invention, He has made us, just as we have made Him. This may seem confusing, but think of (as just one example) language. No doubt people invented and developed language. But language also invented and developed us: without it we would be very different animals. Same with God. God DID make us -- just like it says in the bible -- albeit in an indirect way.

Same tautological argument as above. This says nothing about whether or not God has made us well, or that continuing to use the ideas of desert nomads as applicable moral guides for today is somehow a reasonable position.

I remember when my son was first born, his mom and I visited my parents in Chicago for Christmas. My son was not two months old, and one day his mother and I went to the Chicago Art Institute. It was the first time she had left my son for more than a couple of hours.

Every time she saw paintings of Baby Jesus (and there are lots of them), she started lactating. I remember thinking that the Christian Christmas myth suggests that on one Christmas a child was born who would save mankind from its sins, and grant us all eternal life. ALL parents feel our own children will save us from our sins and grant us eternal life. The myth makes an archetype out of that universal feeling.

Merry Christmas!

This says nothing about Christianity being special, there is just as much archetypal stories in any of Aesops fables, or any number of Greek myth. I also doubt all parents feel that way, because plenty of parents go around abusing and abandoning their children.

Edit: What matters here is not whether or not religious text can have profound effects on individuals, it would be absurd to argue otherwise.

The dangerous idea is that these text somehow provide something objective that we can take away and that we can be sure of. That there is something special about the Bible that sets it apart from any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity, or even that any artistic production can have that authority. The important thing to get through the heads of all theist is that their religious views are not adequate reasons to be telling others how to live.

[Drkshadow03]

The dangerous idea is that these text somehow provide something objective that we can take away and that we can be sure of. That there is something special about the Bible that sets it apart from any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity, or even that any artistic production can have that authority. The important thing to get through the heads of all theist is that their religious views are not adequate reasons to be telling others how to live.

Of course, most of us haven't really been arguing any of that, but okay, sure.

[OrphanPip]

Of course, most of us haven't really been arguing any of that, but okay, sure.

That is all I have been defending the New Atheist for, the position of the New Atheist is necessary to stand in the way of that perspective of religion. And I think it would be naive to believe that isn't how most people take religion. Just look at how religion is used politically in the US, Africa, and the Middle East.

New Atheist fill an important role of criticism against those dangerous ideas, and they are indeed dangerous.

And even when people aren't actively involved in religious preaching you can see how they use religion to try and control others. Ecurb's post equated Christianity with a Western identity, this in itself is an attempt to exclude non-Christians from some constructed sense of Western identity.

I also disagree that anyone here hasn't been attempting to point to the Bible's worth on the basis of its ability to reveal something important about humanity. What does it say to claim the Bible gives special insight, but to instill the Bible with a sense of authority.

[Ecurb]

My point is that the Bible (or, more generally, Judeo-Christian ethics) IS our moral compass. We can try to run from that fact, but we cannot avoid it any more than we can avoid the fact that the English language is the medium through which we think. Our morals (and I’m an atheist, and I’m including myself in “our”) would be very different were it not for Christianity. They might be “better”, or they might be “worse” – but judging the Christian moral compass from the “outside” is impossible, because even atheistic morals are culturally constructed, and rely on a long history of moral and ethical thought that is inextricably interwoven with Christian ethics.

Also, you don’t seem to understand my point. You write: “This says nothing about Christianity being special, there is just as much archetypal stories in any of Aesops fables, or any number of Greek myth.” That’s certainly true – but I argued that Christianity is “special (to us)” because it is OUR religious tradition. We are further removed from Greek myths, and their influence has ebbed over the centuries. The Christian stories are OUR stories – not only more influential than Greek myths, but also more resonant to the Western-educated mind. To a lesser extent, I’d also suggest that Greek myths are more influential and resonant to Westerners than Hindu myths.

As far as what constitutes an “adequate reason to tell others how to live”, why is Christianity any worse than a great many other motives? It, at least, has stood the test of time. Obviously, a great many religious AND atheistic people tell other people how to live, and, unless they use force, we need not pay any more attention to the Pope than to Joseph Stalin. Nonetheless, if we believe in freedom, we must also believe in the freedom to tell others how to live (if not in the freedom to force them to comply).

Finally, there obviously IS something that sets the Bible apart from “any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity…” That something is the influence it has had on Western thought, and the influence Western thought has had on it. Surely a work that has influenced the hearts and minds of untold millions of brilliant thinkers might provide greater “insight into humanity” than some random work of fiction that nobody has ever read. Why do so many people love the Bible? Why has it been so influential? Wouldn’t the answers to these question provide “insights into humanity”? A lack of interest in what "insights' might be found in the Bible suggests a lack of curiosity that is anti-intellectual.

[OrphanPip]

My point is that the Bible (or, more generally, Judeo-Christian ethics) IS our moral compass. We can try to run from that fact, but we cannot avoid it any more than we can avoid the fact that the English language is the medium through which we think. Our morals (and I’m an atheist, and I’m including myself in “our”) would be very different were it not for Christianity. They might be “better”, or they might be “worse” – but judging the Christian moral compass from the “outside” is impossible, because even atheistic morals are culturally constructed, and rely on a long history of moral and ethical thought that is inextricably interwoven with Christian ethics.

It's not impossible. Looking at any society, you can find essentially identical moral values nearly everywhere. You're ignoring the fact that much of what you're likely considering Christian morality is either inherent to humanity, or predates Judeo-Christian culture by a great deal of time. Moreover, it is hardly an argument merely to state something is inextricably interwoven, please I invite you to tell me what aspect of my morals can not be explained without a Christian framework.

Also, you don’t seem to understand my point. You write: “This says nothing about Christianity being special, there is just as much archetypal stories in any of Aesops fables, or any number of Greek myth.” That’s certainly true – but I argued that Christianity is “special (to us)” because it is OUR religious tradition. We are further removed from Greek myths, and their influence has ebbed over the centuries. The Christian stories are OUR stories – not only more influential than Greek myths, but also more resonant to the Western-educated mind. To a lesser extent, I’d also suggest that Greek myths are more influential and resonant to Westerners than Hindu myths.

Yet, this still says nothing of why we should care or accept what they say. Why would this mean we should think them special, merely because they have been repeated so often we have internalized them? This argument is still tautological.

As far as what constitutes an “adequate reason to tell others how to live”, why is Christianity any worse than a great many other motives? It, at least, has stood the test of time. Obviously, a great many religious AND atheistic people tell other people how to live, and, unless they use force, we need not pay any more attention to the Pope than to Joseph Stalin. Nonetheless, if we believe in freedom, we must also believe in the freedom to tell others how to live (if not in the freedom to force them to comply).

Because it lacks any sort of reasoned argument, I think any arbitrary prescription absurd. To quote a philosophy prof I had once, if the Bible says it is wrong to steal, is it wrong to steal because God says it or merely because there is something about stealing that makes it wrong. We should be able to defend why we think we should be able to direct the lives of others, we should have a reason more than some book said so. Of course, this is a position of Liberalism, but I'd be willing to defend Liberalism in another thread not here.

Finally, there obviously IS something that sets the Bible apart from “any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity…” That something is the influence it has had on Western thought, and the influence Western thought has had on it. Surely a work that has influenced the hearts and minds of untold millions of brilliant thinkers might provide greater “insight into humanity” than some random work of fiction that nobody has ever read. Why do so many people love the Bible? Why has it been so influential? Wouldn’t the answers to these question provide “insights into humanity”? A lack of interest in what "insights' might be found in the Bible suggests a lack of curiosity that is anti-intellectual.

Power structures, continual enforcement of the ideas by people that accept it as a given and so propagate ideas that lie on weak foundations. I don't have a lack of interest, I have read the Bible. I disagree with it, and I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing special about the book beyond its ability to reveal the cultural ideas of those interpreting it or those who wrote it. It gives us nothing about how people really should live that can not be reasoned far better without it.

[Drkshadow03]

That is all I have been defending the New Atheist for, the position of the New Atheist is necessary to stand in the way of that perspective of religion. And I think it would be naive to believe that isn't how most people take religion. Just look at how religion is used politically in the US, Africa, and the Middle East.

New Atheist fill an important role of criticism against those dangerous ideas, and they are indeed dangerous.

And even when people aren't actively involved in religious preaching you can see how they use religion to try and control others. Ecurb's post equated Christianity with a Western identity, this in itself is an attempt to exclude non-Christians from some constructed sense of Western identity.

I also disagree that anyone here hasn't been attempting to point to the Bible's worth on the basis of its ability to reveal something important about humanity. What does it say to claim the Bible gives special insight, but to instill the Bible with a sense of authority.

Well, while I have argued the Bible has worth and can reveal something important about humanity, I haven't necessarily claimed other literature cannot do this or that the Bible is more special than other literature necessarily. Of course, it has a special place in my heart because it's my culture's myths rather that some other culture's.

Ecurb's post annoyed me a little bit too for the exact same reasons though.

[Ecurb]

The idea that Christianity in general or the Bible in particular “lacks any reasoned argument” is ludicrous. The arguments reasoned from (and in) the Bible fill thousands upon thousands of volumes. Your prejudices are showing. Perhaps you think no argument with which you disagree is “reasoned”, but that’s mere hubris. Any philosophical or theological “reasoned argument” must begin with certain premises that cannot be proved. The Bible (and Christian theology) is no different.

My argument is not “tautological”. I’m simply saying that most people are interested in what makes us what we are – and the Bible and Christianity are a big part of that. This is not tautological, it’s “egotistical”, in a normal, healthy sort of way. We’re all interested in ourselves. I’ll grant that some people reject that approach, and are more interested in Buddhism or Native American Religion. That’s fine. But I think it’s easier to gain a depth of understanding about Western thought than about modes of thinking with which we are less familiar. At least we know the basic grammar of Western thought.

In addition, we do NOT find identical moral values everywhere – your assertion that we do is simply incorrect. Loving one’s enemy is not a virtue for the Yanamamo.

Obviously, you think that you can “explain” all aspects of your morals without a Christian framework. Perhaps you can – but explanations that ignore the cultural and historical underpinnings on which your (and every other Western person’s) morals are based are surely more limited than those that do not.

In addition, the notion that we can reason our way to a moral code is limited. Why is deducing a moral code somehow superior to discovering one through (for example) analogical reasoning?

One more thing: stylistically, The Bible (although diverse) has some sections that are paragons of simplicity in story telling. Tolstoy thought the story of Joseph and his brothers the idea work of prose -- although, of course, Thomas Mann took the 2 page story and reworked into a many volume book.

[DanielBenoit]

In addition, we do NOT find identical moral values everywhere – your assertion that we do is simply incorrect. Loving one’s enemy is not a virtue for the Yanamamo.

That may be because Yanamamo had no geographical contact with any Western/Eastern religions for most of its existence.

And actually, yes, we in fact do find the same moral values everywhere across the globe, though with obvious variations.

It first must be noted that just as Christianity is indebted to Judaism, so is Islam and both of those more "modern" religions are derivative of the Hebrew Bible.

Just take the Golden Rule for example: In Ancient Egypt we have: "That which you hate to be done to you do not do to another", in Greece according to Epictetus "What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others"; in Bahai "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee"; in Buddhism "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful"; in Christianity "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise"; in Confucianism "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you"; in Islam "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself"; in Judaism "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary"; in Taoism "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss"; in Zoroastrianism "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself", etc......