Atheism Not A Religion?

[Stone holm]

Mostly Catholics I think.  But I think philosophy has actually advanced in the last 2000 years. 

 

Half a decade or so when one of my sons was in undergraduate he indicated that there had been an uptick in the number of people declaring for Philosophy majors -- which was certainly a change in direction since it seemed to be  a major headed for the academic dustbin.

[Ahab]

I think a key to understanding Rorty, and many other renown philosophers, is that they're trying to find a way to harmonize all thought processes from everyone, collectively.  Such as when Rorty says people say things are "true" because they're in agreement with what someone is saying.  He doesn't really get into the fact that some people are just plain wrong when they say something is true.  As if there is no external reality, with truth being whatever anyone thinks is true, applied evenly across the board to everyone.

[phaedrus ut]

Atheism by itself is indeed- not a religion. But, the idea and belief of atheism can be a  religious belief

 

The disbelief in astrology isn't a religious belief, the disbelief in water witching or magic crystals isn't a religious belief, the disbelief in the Greek pantheon isn't a religious belief.

 

The absence of belief in any deities is not a religious belief.

 

 

Phaedrus

[Ahab]

The disbelief in astrology isn't a religious belief, the disbelief in water witching or magic crystals isn't a religious belief, the disbelief in the Greek pantheon isn't a religious belief.

 

The absence of belief in any deities is not a religious belief.

 

 

Phaedrus

The absence of belief in a deity isn't atheism.

 

Atheism is when someone believes there is no God, rather than just not having any belief on the issue.

 

No belief either way, either for or against, is known as something else.

[pmccombs1]

 

I'd say both, if you were to ask me... and I would be talking about good science and true religion, which are indeed compatible.

 

Science is about method. Seeing God would only be one potential starting point for a scientific investigation, but if it can't be taken beyond that so that anyone at all can see and measure God by repeating the same verifiable steps (and receive the same measurable result), then it can't be science at all.

 

There have been plenty of people who have asked questions about God. There's the first step in science. Plenty of people have done background research on the available evidences and conclusions. There's another step. Plenty of people have suggested hypotheses about God, and plenty of people have set about experimenting based on these hypotheses. Those are other important steps in doing science. Many of these people have come up with their own answers, but all of this has fallen to pieces once brought to the table, and that is where the science of it disappears. Science is made at the end of this method, when peers get together and communicate their findings. They assess the measurements and the available data and see if reason can justify theory. Or is there room for dissent? The problem is that people who experiment with God can't provide more than anecdotes. They can't demonstrate causation; they can't show a single measurable thing at all. People are left trying to assess stories and see if they personally agree or disagree.

 

So far, there is no God theory in science. That means nobody has managed to successfully apply the complete scientific method to the question, just like nobody has been able to answer the unscientific question of whether or not a certain apple tastes delicious.  So I don't know what you mean when you say that science and religion are compatible. Kind of like shaolin kung-fu is compatible with paint-by-number oil painting? The questions don't even apply to the same domains; why should they be compatible?

[Analytics]

 

Well if you are honestly interested in this you should read "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature"   http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/rorty/rorty_PMN_full.pdf in which, to oversimplify near to the point of absurdity, he says we cannot have a "mirror of nature" in language.

Wikipedia says this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature

Sorry about the formatting- this new quote function mess up is driving me nuts

 

Call it a symbol, call it a metaphor- the word "water" is a word and words are not wet.  It is not a picture of water, and you can't drink a word.   A word is NOT water.

 

Maybe it is a stand-in when one is writing a formula, but that just makes it even more abstract.  The word IS NOT the experience of what we call "water".

 

I don't know how else to say it- but IT CANNOT "REPRESENT" WHAT CANNOT BE SEEN

 

We don't know anything about what we call "water" it self- all we can know is what humans can see and feel and experience about water.

 

I don't understand the confusion.

 

Science predicts what we will experience when we put water on the stove to boil.  In a few minutes it will begin to bubble.  If we put a thermometer in it, we will know approximately when it will bubble. 

 

That is controlling and predicting events in space and time.  THOSE EVENTS THOUGH ARE OUR EXPERIENCES OF THE WORLD- we are experiencing "events" not the things itself.

 

Looking at your computer is an event.  As you type your computer will never be the same because you have added or subtracted from all that is on your computer.  Seeing your computer as you experience it is an "event".

Here are some other folks who are in the Rorty/ Hartshorne /James/ Wittgenstein/ Dewey etc camp.  There is a reason we Mormons have links with Claremont.  Mark my words- this is the future of Mormon thought.  It is the only direction a rational Mormon can go, in my most humble opinion

http://www.ctr4process.org/about/process/

 

 

I'll just repeat my point that "water" is a well-defined word that clearly and directly denotes a physical real-world substance.  To the extent you take issue with that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

If Mormon thought does go in the direction you indicate, it will be interesting to find out how they interpret statements such as, "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come."  If future Mormons don't think they can have "knowledge of things as they are," will they think it's possible to have truth?

 

With that, I thank you for engaging with me in this thread and leave the last words to you.

[mfbukowski]

Half a decade or so when one of my sons was in undergraduate he indicated that there had been an uptick in the number of people declaring for Philosophy majors -- which was certainly a change in direction since it seemed to be  a major headed for the academic dustbin.

When I went to school it was important to learn how to think.

 

Now it is more important to figure out how to make a buck or two.  It will change as we get more and more uneducated- I hope.  It is the only hope we have to keep those who have no critical thinking skills from taking over completely.

[phaedrus ut]

The absence of belief in a deity isn't atheism.

That's exactly what it is.

 

Atheism is when someone believes there is no God, rather than just not having any belief on the issue.

 

I think you're confusing Atheism with Antitheism or positive Atheism with simple Atheism.

 

No belief either way, either for or against, is known as something else.

No it's not. I think you're assuming this is Agnosticism or something but Agnosticism is simply the belief that it's impossible to know either way.

Phaedrus

[pmccombs1]

The disbelief in astrology isn't a religious belief, the disbelief in water witching or magic crystals isn't a religious belief, the disbelief in the Greek pantheon isn't a religious belief.

 

The absence of belief in any deities is not a religious belief.

 

 

Phaedrus

 

Eric Hoffer wrote a book entitled, "The True Believer." In it, he placed the following aphorism: Though ours is a godless world, it is anything but irreligious. Everywhere the True Believer is on the march... shaping the world in his own image.

 

While "atheism" may be the definition of irreligious, many of it's proponents are not. They have a cause that matters to them, that informs their actions, and to which they dedicate their lives. Some of them march about shaping the world after their own image.

 

There is one definition of "religious" that absolutely matches these True Belivers in unbelief: they are scrupulously faithful and conscientious when it comes to their own formula for what really matters.

[Ahab]

Science is about method. Seeing God would only be one potential starting point for a scientific investigation, but if it can't be taken beyond that so that anyone at all can see and measure God by repeating the same verifiable steps (and receive the same measurable result), then it can't be science at all.

 

There have been plenty of people who have asked questions about God. There's the first step in science. Plenty of people have done background research on the available evidences and conclusions. There's another step. Plenty of people have suggested hypotheses about God, and plenty of people have set about experimenting based on these hypotheses. Those are other important steps in doing science. Many of these people have come up with their own answers, but all of this has fallen to pieces once brought to the table, and that is where the science of it disappears. Science is made at the end of this method, when peers get together and communicate their findings. They assess the measurements and the available data and see if reason can justify theory. Or is there room for dissent? The problem is that people who experiment with God can't provide more than anecdotes. They can't demonstrate causation; they can't show a single measurable thing at all. People are left trying to assess stories and see if they personally agree or disagree.

 

So far, there is no God theory in science. That means nobody has managed to successfully apply the complete scientific method to the question, just like nobody has been able to answer the unscientific question of whether or not a certain apple tastes delicious.  So I don't know what you mean when you say that science and religion are compatible. Kind of like shaolin kung-fu is compatible with paint-by-number oil painting? The questions don't even apply to the same domains; why should they be compatible?

Despite your nay-saying, anyone at all can see and measure God by repeating the same verifiable steps (and receive the same measurable result), and that is what makes it science.  The scientific method is just as useful to find God as it is to find anything else.

 

The only factor that needs to be understood is that God is in control of when and where and how God can be experienced, instead of being at someone else's beck and call.  God can move around, for example, instead of having no choice but to stay put in the same place forever, so we can only go to God when God has agreed to meet us somewhere.  And we can only hear from God when God chooses to talk to us, rather than God being at someone else's beck and call as if all we have to do is speak and God will answer.  As far as timing goes, I mean.  God has promised to answer our prayers when we pray, but God is the one who chooses when and where to talk to us, and what to say to us, depending on what God chooses to do.

 

It's similar to the scientific method you would use to experience anyone else who can move around and say whatever he wants to say, though.  It's not just about what you can do to find God, as if it's all up to you, but also about what God needs to do to find you.

[phaedrus ut]

Eric Hoffer wrote a book entitled, "The True Believer." In it, he placed the following aphorism: Though ours is a godless world, it is anything but irreligious. Everywhere the True Believer is on the march... shaping the world in his own image.

While "atheism" may be the definition of irreligious, many of it's proponents are not. They have a cause that matters to them, that informs their actions, and to which they dedicate their lives. Some of them march about shaping the world after their own image.

There is one definition of "religious" that absolutely matches these True Belivers in unbelief: they are scrupulously faithful and conscientious when it comes to their own formula for what really matters.

Again lets not confuse the terminology. Atheism isn't a lack of being religious. Their are people who practice religion in a nontheistic religious tradition.  Atheists lack a belief in a deity.  Lack of a belief in a deity doesn't make my absence of belief a religion. 

 

If I don't believe in Scientology and I actively write in opposition of Scientology neither my unbelief nor active opposition is a religious belief.

 

 

Phaedrus

[Ahab]

Again lets not confuse the terminology. Atheism isn't a lack of being religious. Their are people who practice religion in a nontheistic religious tradition.  Atheists lack a belief in a deity.  Lack of a belief in a deity doesn't make my absence of belief a religion. 

 

If I don't believe in Scientology and I actively write in opposition of Scientology neither my unbelief nor active opposition is a religious belief.

 

 

Phaedrus

Again, from wiki: Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

 

I'm not saying you have to believe in God to have a religion, but all atheists have a religion and the religion of all atheists is their own organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence with a common belief that there is no God.

[phaedrus ut]

Again, from wiki: Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

 

I'm not saying you have to believe in God to have a religion, but all atheists have a religion and the religion of all atheists is their own organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence with a common belief that there is no God.

 

What you said was "The absence of belief in a deity isn't atheism".  You're moving back and forth in your terminology.  You even quoted me above as saying "Atheism isn't a lack of being religious".  There is no common belief in no god. Some believe gods is impossible, some what scientific evidence, others are hopeful and yet to have a god to believe in.  You can't just generalize them as a group anymore that you can generalize people who don't think Elvis was the king of rock and roll.

 

Phaedrus

[mfbukowski]

I'll just repeat my point that "water" is a well-defined word that clearly and directly denotes a physical real-world substance.  To the extent you take issue with that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

If Mormon thought does go in the direction you indicate, it will be interesting to find out how they interpret statements such as, "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come."  If future Mormons don't think they can have "knowledge of things as they are," will they think it's possible to have truth?

 

With that, I thank you for engaging with me in this thread and leave the last words to you.

I have enjoyed it- thanks for the discussion!  It is one of the best I have experienced here.

I'll just repeat my point that "water" is a well-defined word that clearly and directly denotes a physical real-world substance.  To the extent you take issue with that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I don't disagree with what you said but I disagree with what you meant, I think !

 

The word of course is "defined" in human language to refer to all the human experiences of what we call "water".  Our way of experiencing water is different from the way Orcas or cuttlefish experience water, so our human definitions don't count outside of our experience of "water" because how they experience water is totally different.

 

We cannot know anything about water as it is independent of human experience- only as we experience it.  I don't see how it is possible to deny that fact.  To me, to do so manifests confusion about this simple point.

 

So are we going to say that they don't experience the "real world"?  Is water "really" blue-green, or is it colorless?  What is it about the "real world" which escapes the way we experience it? 

 

 

If Mormon thought does go in the direction you indicate, it will be interesting to find out how they interpret statements such as, "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come."  If future Mormons don't think they can have "knowledge of things as they are," will they think it's possible to have truth?

 

 

Do you honestly think that Mormons think that only science represents "knowledge of things as they are , and as they were, and as they are to come."??

 

Surely you know that is not the case.

 

Mormons believe in God.  Surely Mormons know that God is not verifiable through science- so what are we to conclude?  That statements about God cannot be "true" for Mormons??  Clearly Mormons don't believe that so they must not be talking about scientific facts as the only way to find out about things "as they are".

 

Mormons believe they can receive knowledge through "the spirit" and in fact they think that is the BEST way to find out about "things as they are"

 

Does that sound to you like Mormons think that "things as they are" are objectively verifiable only?   Clearly that is not what Mormons are saying at all.

 

"Things as they are" for a Mormon is all that is known about a thing- both scientifically and spiritually.  Clearly there are multiple dimensions to truth to Mormons.

 

The way things are is the way we experience them- we experience reality directly.  The only reality we can possibly know is the reality of experience and thinking there is something beyond that is just fantasy.

 

We make "things as they are" alive through experience.  We walk into a spooky room, and it is SPOOKY.  It really IS spooky.  We walk into the temple and feel the spirit.  We really ARE feeling the spirit.  It is not objectively verifiable, but that is the point.  Not all of what we know is objectively verifiable.

 

"Things as they are" are not devoid of human intent or human purpose.  We walk along the beach and see grains of sand, but suddenly we see a flicker of what might be gold.  Gold is valuable and we are drawn to that flicker.

 

Why is that true?  Because our experience is always filtered through our human needs. 

 

There is no such thing as an "objective" news story.  Why not?  Because each reporter sees the story differently.  Each historian sees history differently.  Each physicist sees physics slightly differently than others and evaluates the data differently or sees where it might lead differently.

 

Were that not true there could be no great "discoveries" (inventions).   If Einstein saw everything the way every one else saw it, we would have no Quantum physics etc.  Same for Newton, Copernicus etc.  Those were individual humans seeing things differently than others- and it took there individual perspectives to create the paradigm shifts which make up our notions of "things as they are".

 

All of this just shows that "truth" is not correspondence to old notions of what things were.  It is a creative process of solving problems with new solutions.

 

Any other way of seeing it just doesn't make sense to me at all.  If anyone can show me how to get outside of human experience to know anything about a world outside of human experience, please let me know immediately.

 

If you have found that, you have just revolutionized all of science philosophy and human knowledge. 

[mfbukowski]

Eric Hoffer wrote a book entitled, "The True Believer." In it, he placed the following aphorism: Though ours is a godless world, it is anything but irreligious. Everywhere the True Believer is on the march... shaping the world in his own image.

 

While "atheism" may be the definition of irreligious, many of it's proponents are not. They have a cause that matters to them, that informs their actions, and to which they dedicate their lives. Some of them march about shaping the world after their own image.

 

There is one definition of "religious" that absolutely matches these True Belivers in unbelief: they are scrupulously faithful and conscientious when it comes to their own formula for what really matters.

Really great stuff!  Thanks!

[Ahab]

What you said was "The absence of belief in a deity isn't atheism".  You're moving back and forth in your terminology.  You even quoted me above as saying "Atheism isn't a lack of being religious".  There is no common belief in no god. Some believe gods is impossible, some what scientific evidence, others are hopeful and yet to have a god to believe in.  You can't just generalize them as a group anymore that you can generalize people who don't think Elvis was the king of rock and roll.

 

Phaedrus

Yes, I'm approaching the issue from different perspectives, but my premise remains the same.   Consider someone who has no belief at all regarding God, neither a belief in God nor a disbelief in God.  They're neither a believer nor a disbeliever in God, and to say they have a disbelief in God would be an error.  They just don't know, either way, and they may have never even given the question any thought at all in their life.  A person like that is not an atheist.

 

And yes, all atheists have a common belief... a belief that there is no God.

 

You can go on and on and on saying that what I am saying is not true, but it is true and I'm done arguing with you about this. 

[pmccombs1]

Despite your nay-saying, anyone at all can see and measure God by repeating the same verifiable steps (and receive the same measurable result), and that is what makes it science.  The scientific method is just as useful to find God as it is to find anything else.

 

 

OK. What are these experimental steps, and how do you measure and verify that the steps were done correctly? What is the unit of measure that you are using in this experiment? We need to understand the quantities before we can even start thinking about the science of it.

[phaedrus ut]

And yes, all atheists have a common belief... a belief that there is no God.

 

 

A non-belief isn't a belief.  Just like off isn't a TV channel.

[Ahab]

If anyone can show me how to get outside of human experience to know anything about a world outside of human experience, please let me know immediately.

Which human?  Do you know there are some things you don't know that other humans know?  If you do, how do you know?

 

That kinda gets back to the point of this thread, I think.  Even though atheists say there is no God, there really is a God, and I and other humans know there is a God because we know more than they know.  To them we'reprobably perceived as people who claim to know something they don't believe can be known, though.  So how much do humans know?

[Ahab]

OK. What are these experimental steps, and how do you measure and verify that the steps were done correctly? What is the unit of measure that you are using in this experiment? We need to understand the quantities before we can even start thinking about the science of it.

Ok, let's use an example that is relevant to this thread.  Atheists claim there is no God, so let's experiment to find out if they're right.

 

First we need to come to some understanding of what "God" really is, or would be if there is a God.   They're saying there's not one, but what do they mean?  They must have some idea in mind to be able to claim there is not.   How about if we agree on the idea, and you can call it a hypothesis if you want to, that we're using the word "God" to refer to a supreme being... the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

 

Okay, so is there or is there no God?  Let's start the experiment now.  Let's go in search of the most supreme being in all of existence.  And while we're at it let's stick with the reality that all of us can experience, rather than resorting to imaginations as if whatever we can imagine may correspond to the truth.   And let's make it so that anyone can see the same things for themselves.

 

Ah!  I've found it!  The most supreme being that any one of us has ever experienced, and that all of us can experience right now.  It's the kind of being with more intelligence than any other kind of being anyone has ever known.  Can you spot it?  Do you know which kind of being it is?  It's us!  We are it!  And I challenge everyone to find a kind of being that is more intelligent than our kind is.  And even if you do not agree with me you're still the same kind of being I am.

[Stone holm]

Ok, let's use an example that is relevant to this thread.  Atheists claim there is no God, so let's experiment to find out if they're right.

 

First we need to come to some understanding of what "God" really is, or would be if there is a God.   They're saying there's not one, but what do they mean?  They must have some idea in mind to be able to claim there is not.   How about if we agree on the idea, and you can call it a hypothesis if you want to, that we're using the word "God" to refer to a supreme being... the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

 

Okay, so is there or is there no God?  Let's start the experiment now.  Let's go in search of the most supreme being in all of existence.  And while we're at it let's stick with the reality that all of us can experience, rather than resorting to imaginations as if whatever we can imagine may correspond to the truth.   And let's make it so that anyone can see the same things for themselves.

 

Ah!  I've found it!  The most supreme being that any one of us has ever experienced, and that all of us can experience right now.  It's the kind of being with more intelligence than any other kind of being anyone has ever known.  Can you spot it?  Do you know which kind of being it is?  It's us!  We are it!  And I challenge everyone to find a kind of being that is more intelligent than our kind is.  And even if you do not agree with me you're still the same kind of being I am.

You think god is like the intellectual king of the hill? What do we know really of dolphins and whales, etc. Because we have the technology to capture all other species we are therefore the Supreme Being?

[Rob Osborn]

A non-belief isn't a belief.  Just like off isn't a TV channel.

This is the typical semantics problem that we cant get around. A non-belief(meaning one has no belief on the existence of God) in God is not the definition of an atheist. That definition is "agnostic". Atheists do have a belief in regards to whether or not God exists. What is that belief? That God does not exist, that is their true belief. Only agnostics can claim "no belief" on whether or not God exists.

[Stone holm]

This is the typical semantics problem that we cant get around. A non-belief(meaning one has no belief on the existence of God) in God is not the definition of an atheist. That definition is "agnostic". Atheists do have a belief in regards to whether or not God exists. What is that belief? That God does not exist, that is their true belief. Only agnostics can claim "no belief" on whether or not God exists.

That kind of belief is not a religion.

[Alvino]

I thought the one atheist quoted in the article, Michael Luciano, had an interesting point.

 

He said-"There's something not OK with appropriating all of this religious language, imagery and ritual for atheism."

 

I have to say that I kind of agree with him.  It does seem like these atheists are appropriating religion while still wanting to be anti-religious.

 

 

I recommend you read a book by Alain de Botton called "Religion for Atheists" that might open this dichotomy up. Here's a very telling interview with the author about his ideas on the topic:

Personally, and I agree with de Botton on this, how atheists and non-believers have tended to appropriate aspects of religion they like has been largely uncreative and leaves those of us that still find religious language inspiring a tad unmoved.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

You think god is like the intellectual king of the hill?

Yes, of course.  The term "God" refers to the  most supreme being in all of existence, if there is such a thing, and in reality there is such a thing with our kind of being as it.  There isn't a kind of being that is more supreme than our own kind, collectively speaking.

 

What do we know really of dolphins and whales, etc. Because we have the technology to capture all other species we are therefore the Supreme Being?

No, the reason is not because we can "capture" all other kinds of beings but because we are the most supreme.  That is reality.