Comments | fpb: The religion of atheism

fpb

The religion of atheism

Apr 13, 2008 13:33

There is one tremendous and widespread mistake about atheism: that is, that it is not a religion - that it somehow even opposes religion. Many of us, including many Christians, accept this claim implicitly, using the nouns "atheism" and "religion" as opposites.( Read more... )

atheism, christianity, religion, philosophy, polemics

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

theswordmaiden April 13 2008, 17:40:23 UTC

To me, religion means believing that God(s), spirits, higher power, etc., or anything that can't be proven scientifically, do or do not exist. I think it cannot be proven either way, whether God exists or whether you reincarnate after death, so if you believe one way or the other then that's your religious belief. Atheists believe something they couldn't prove, just as I do, so to me atheism is a religion.

cerebresque April 14 2008, 15:35:51 UTC

I would reply that this privileges not believing in the existence of deity over not believing in anything else ( ... )

A few questions fpb April 14 2008, 15:45:00 UTC

Do you admit that no decently intelligent human being can be without a picture/idea/concept/philosophy of existence ( ... )

Re: A few questions cerebresque April 14 2008, 16:22:09 UTC

Do you admit that no decently intelligent human being can be without a picture/idea/concept/philosophy of existence?

I suspect that even less intelligent human beings have a philosophy of existence, even if they remain mostly unaware of it, but essentially, yes.

Do you admit that, unlike purple galaxies, any entity defineable as God is certainly a part of such a picture? (Purple galaxies may or may not exist without great alteration to the picture of existence as such; the existence and qualities of God, on the other hand, are surely inevitably and immediately relevant to it.)

With qualification; inasmuch as any reasonably complete philosophy of existence has to include a physics as well as a metaphysics, the existence of something so very contradictory to physics as we know it should be part of such a picture, but that's quibbling, really, especially over a throwaway example. Your underlying point here I certainly admit.

Do you admit that the motivating principle behind all honest religious practice is the idea the religion has ( ... )

Re: A few questions fpb April 14 2008, 17:01:37 UTC

That is interesting, because I would call the position you assume an agnostic position. Pace Sir Karl Popper, it is worth it to know how we define our terms, because otherwise we might be stuck arguing about apples and oranges ( ... )

Re: A few questions madfedor April 18 2008, 14:47:21 UTC

Finally, do you understand what I mean when I say that the job of defamation carried out by early Christians against competing religions when they called them "village practices" ("paganism") is the same in kind as that carried out by atheists when they claim to oppose "atheism" to "religon"?That is an excellent and key question in this topic. While we may find agreement that, as philosophies of existence, religion and atheism may co-exist in isolation, we must not ignore the cultural dynamics. The comparison between, for example, Sagan and Dawkins is an excellent point on which to focus. We (general) often focus on the egregious violence committed against the early Christians by the Roman government, but it must be emphasized that the punishments were for the crime of refusing to acknowledge and participate in the rituals of the state religion. History is rife with similar examples of religious violence. We should not be surprised that Dawkinsesque rhetoric is taken in that light ( ... )

Re: A few questions fpb April 18 2008, 16:19:27 UTC

The previous comment in this place is deleted due to utter stupidity on my part. But as for an atheist "mythos", have you ever read CS Lewis' great essay "The funeral of a great myth"? If you have not, have a look. If you cannot access it for whatever reason, I will publish it in this blog for your advantage. Lewis makes a formidable argument that a myth for modern atheism does indeed esist - and he is rather too optimistic, in my view, in saying that it was already dying out in his time.

Re: A few questions madfedor April 18 2008, 18:28:43 UTC

I'll look for the essay. I believe I can offer this clarification despite not having read it:

Criticizing a belief system in terms of one's own belief system is invalid. It becomes a projection of one's beliefs onto the mythos of the "target", giving utterly predictable, false results like "modern pagans don't have a unified creation myth, therefore they are not a religion."

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I do mean to reject the notion that Christian apologia has much credibility when it criticizes other belief systems. I apply the same standard to my fellow pagans when they engage in Christian bashing, and I reject the same from Dawkins and his "talking snake" snark.

Re: A few questions fpb April 18 2008, 18:46:48 UTC

You wasted a couple of paragraphs on fighting Aunt Sallies of your own creation. Both Lewis and I have long since read and internalized GK Chesterton's advice that it is perfectly dumb to charge an atheist with the dreadful crime of Atheism, or a Communist with the awful heresy of Communism. What you have to do is understand what they are saying. And I suggest you read the essay before you try reacting to what you have not read again.

Re: A few questions nicked_metal April 19 2008, 02:01:53 UTC

Ahhh, but was he trying to fight you, or was he trying to explain what he was thinking?

Re: A few questions nicked_metal April 19 2008, 02:01:34 UTC

The Funeral of a Great Myth. Just read it, quite impressed. The last paragraph is especially good, although the emphasis by the person who posted it is a bit weird.

Re: A few questions fpb April 19 2008, 03:22:13 UTC

Thank you, but this is only a selection of the essay. No wonder the thread was confused as to what Lewis and the poster meant. I will now post the whole, uncut essay, and apologize to Lewis' shadow.

Re: A few questions nicked_metal April 19 2008, 08:13:48 UTC

Aha! Thanks.

Re: A few questions fpb April 19 2008, 19:41:14 UTC

It is now up (took a lot more work than I thought).

theswordmaiden April 14 2008, 18:21:10 UTC

I do not believe in God because I have no evidence available to me that implies his existence.

I do not believe in galaxies composed entirely of purple stars because there is no evidence available to me that implies their existence, either.

To me those aren't really comparable. The color of a star is observable, but gods or their actions aren't. I mean, observable things are in within the realm of science and other things aren't.

So I don't see why believing in deities has anything to do with evidence. Supernatural things are things you *believe* or don't believe in. Evidence is something you *accept,* like evidence for evolution. To me they are apples and oranges and I don't see why evidence matters for something that's outside science and observation.

fpb April 14 2008, 19:34:44 UTC

Let me explain something to you in the plainest possible terms. Emotionally, I am drawn to atheism - almost irresistibly so. It is my discipline as a historian that forces me to accept the evidence for Christianity. Those are historical documents, first-rate ones. The Gospel of John, in particular, is an eyewitness account - that is my conclusion from my experience as a historian specializing in the interpretation of original documents. So there is evidence that a person can be convinced by. I regret to have to tell you that you will have to rethink, or at least rephrase, your views.

Back to all threads