Religion, belief, god, and lack thereof.
In lieu of doing my Tech Writing homework, I thought I'd post about some conclusions I've come to over the break. See, all that religion stuff got me thinking. I'd been wondering for a while now what I'd call myself if pressed, and usually ending up at "atheist-leaning agnostic UU", occasionally with some "non-theist Quaker" and such in there too, because I'm a UU and adjectives are how we roll. :D
Anyway, I ended up at YT the other night and came across an absolutely fascinating video. It suggests that atheism is just a rejection of belief in gods, rather than an assertion that no gods exist. Not believing that gods exist, rather than believing that gods don't exist. It sounds semantic, I know, but the video gives a very good analogy involving three people and a coin that explains the difference. And really, it's a pretty good argument for atheism as opposed to agnosticism. (It also gets around the "you can't prove there isn't a god!" argument.)
On the other hand, it reminds me of Bishop Spong's rethinking of Christianity, which (IMHO) is so far away from what most people think of as "Christian" that I don't know how he can continue to call himself Christian -- or, for that matter, why he'd want to. The above may not be a redefinition of atheism, linguistically, but culturally, I think people equate "don't believe in God" to "believe there is no God", and I think that's what agnosticism, as a term, tries to get at, that you aren't discounting the possibility, but that there's no reason to believe it, either. And while that's what this guy's trying to get at (neither does atheism discount the possibility, because of course it's possible, just like ghosts and hyper-intelligent cats are possible, there's just no reason to believe it), I don't know if that miscommunication is worth the term "atheist" vs "agnostic".
...So apparently these conclusions were less conclusive than I'd thought.
Anyway, relatedly, the other problem I've been having is that most "reasons why god is illogical/impossible/unreasonable" focus on the (usually Judeo-Christian) concept of God. And, sure, that's an easy one to toss out, and the one most folks care about. But after that, then what? By which I mean.... Well, UU's, say. We're liberal folk. My church generally uses very liberal definitions of God (in order to avoid offense and because the vast majority of us, being in TX, are still recovering from various Christian backgrounds). I came into that church with a liberal-Quaker view of "god". For as much as I have any concept of god now, that's the one I've still got. And it's much harder to disprove this kind of thing, seeing as it's a) moderately individual, and b) much less dogmatic. Should I care that I may still believe in this one? If that's the case, do I have to back off the atheist/agnostic label altogether? It's become increasingly important to my religious identity that I don't believe in the (generally Christian) concept of a personal-supernatural-etc big-G god -- especially as someone who would use "Quaker" and "UU" as descriptors, the first of which is generally considered Christian, and the second of which is of Christian descent -- but there isn't a word for that (not to mention that "I don't believe in your god" is also kind of antagonistic, lol).
And "should" I have this concept at all, anyway? (By which I mean, is it even logically consistent with this worldview I'm developing?) What makes my "god" make any more sense than Jehovah or Vishnu or Zoroaster, anyway? Sure, the concept of god that I have is not the one everyone says "wrote the Bible" -- but am I really using "there's less evidence" as a reason not to dismiss this concept entirely? Really? *eyeroll* I almost feel like I need some sort of a concept of it in my head that I can translate to when someone uses the word (like I have, for example, with the word "hot" used to refer to a person. Because I'm ace, it took me until senior year of high school to realize that when other people said "hot", they might actually be referring to a physical reaction. Me? It's just a synonym for "good-looking" and always has been). But I think the fact that I feel like I need this concept is one of the huge reasons I can't let go of it even if it's illogical. Another is personal experience back when I was a Quaker and before I was a UU. And the third is that atheists simply don't focus on that. It's all Biblical inaccuracy this and Qur'an that, which is all well and good, but now I'm stuck here going "Does it make sense for me to believe what I have been/think I do?" and have no way to know.
And... I guess it doesn't, really, but, gah. Anyone who says it's easier to be an atheist is straight-up making stuff up.
Sigh.
Your thoughts, links, and YouTube videos (informational, entertaining, or anything else, I'm easy), I would be interested in them.
Oh, and if your beliefs are anything along the lines of mine, you might appreciate "Dear God" by XTC, which is more or less an atheist anthem, and rocks soundly wrt both lyrics and music. It's pretty awesome.
ETA: And as I'd also wanted to say and forgot, at least my atheism (such as it is, even with the concept of god) might get me to damn well live my life for once. DLM almost did this, if you can believe it, but inertia is a powerful thing. Maybe, if I can keep reminding myself that I don't get a second shot at this, I'll actually end up with a life worth living. That'd be nice, and worth all the confusion and unknowns and the unpleasantness of the Atheist Closet (even with an almost-deacon for a dad). That would be worth it.
Anyway, I ended up at YT the other night and came across an absolutely fascinating video. It suggests that atheism is just a rejection of belief in gods, rather than an assertion that no gods exist. Not believing that gods exist, rather than believing that gods don't exist. It sounds semantic, I know, but the video gives a very good analogy involving three people and a coin that explains the difference. And really, it's a pretty good argument for atheism as opposed to agnosticism. (It also gets around the "you can't prove there isn't a god!" argument.)
On the other hand, it reminds me of Bishop Spong's rethinking of Christianity, which (IMHO) is so far away from what most people think of as "Christian" that I don't know how he can continue to call himself Christian -- or, for that matter, why he'd want to. The above may not be a redefinition of atheism, linguistically, but culturally, I think people equate "don't believe in God" to "believe there is no God", and I think that's what agnosticism, as a term, tries to get at, that you aren't discounting the possibility, but that there's no reason to believe it, either. And while that's what this guy's trying to get at (neither does atheism discount the possibility, because of course it's possible, just like ghosts and hyper-intelligent cats are possible, there's just no reason to believe it), I don't know if that miscommunication is worth the term "atheist" vs "agnostic".
...So apparently these conclusions were less conclusive than I'd thought.
Anyway, relatedly, the other problem I've been having is that most "reasons why god is illogical/impossible/unreasonable" focus on the (usually Judeo-Christian) concept of God. And, sure, that's an easy one to toss out, and the one most folks care about. But after that, then what? By which I mean.... Well, UU's, say. We're liberal folk. My church generally uses very liberal definitions of God (in order to avoid offense and because the vast majority of us, being in TX, are still recovering from various Christian backgrounds). I came into that church with a liberal-Quaker view of "god". For as much as I have any concept of god now, that's the one I've still got. And it's much harder to disprove this kind of thing, seeing as it's a) moderately individual, and b) much less dogmatic. Should I care that I may still believe in this one? If that's the case, do I have to back off the atheist/agnostic label altogether? It's become increasingly important to my religious identity that I don't believe in the (generally Christian) concept of a personal-supernatural-etc big-G god -- especially as someone who would use "Quaker" and "UU" as descriptors, the first of which is generally considered Christian, and the second of which is of Christian descent -- but there isn't a word for that (not to mention that "I don't believe in your god" is also kind of antagonistic, lol).
And "should" I have this concept at all, anyway? (By which I mean, is it even logically consistent with this worldview I'm developing?) What makes my "god" make any more sense than Jehovah or Vishnu or Zoroaster, anyway? Sure, the concept of god that I have is not the one everyone says "wrote the Bible" -- but am I really using "there's less evidence" as a reason not to dismiss this concept entirely? Really? *eyeroll* I almost feel like I need some sort of a concept of it in my head that I can translate to when someone uses the word (like I have, for example, with the word "hot" used to refer to a person. Because I'm ace, it took me until senior year of high school to realize that when other people said "hot", they might actually be referring to a physical reaction. Me? It's just a synonym for "good-looking" and always has been). But I think the fact that I feel like I need this concept is one of the huge reasons I can't let go of it even if it's illogical. Another is personal experience back when I was a Quaker and before I was a UU. And the third is that atheists simply don't focus on that. It's all Biblical inaccuracy this and Qur'an that, which is all well and good, but now I'm stuck here going "Does it make sense for me to believe what I have been/think I do?" and have no way to know.
And... I guess it doesn't, really, but, gah. Anyone who says it's easier to be an atheist is straight-up making stuff up.
Sigh.
Your thoughts, links, and YouTube videos (informational, entertaining, or anything else, I'm easy), I would be interested in them.
Oh, and if your beliefs are anything along the lines of mine, you might appreciate "Dear God" by XTC, which is more or less an atheist anthem, and rocks soundly wrt both lyrics and music. It's pretty awesome.
ETA: And as I'd also wanted to say and forgot, at least my atheism (such as it is, even with the concept of god) might get me to damn well live my life for once. DLM almost did this, if you can believe it, but inertia is a powerful thing. Maybe, if I can keep reminding myself that I don't get a second shot at this, I'll actually end up with a life worth living. That'd be nice, and worth all the confusion and unknowns and the unpleasantness of the Atheist Closet (even with an almost-deacon for a dad). That would be worth it.