Category: philosophy/religion topics
So as I wrote in another topic, I recently came out to my immediate family as an atheist. After the Big Discussion with the Wife about these things, I conceded that I can imagine a deity morally and physically superior to us, though its probability of existing seems very unlikely.
Anyhow, that is not the reason for this topic. One could say that I 'chose to walk away,' as some call it, or discovered that I really didn't believe it, is the best I understand things. But in a very real sense, so-called judgmental Christians found me out, that is all. I simply contest here that they are not wrong to do so. After all, if you are a Christian, you know there are ways you are to act towards believers, and towards unbelievers, and depending on your persuasion, towards willing impostors. It doesn't seem to address people who find out partway along they are not authentic, but that would stand to reason coming from a Bronze age warrior deity.
So how are they supposed to know? Love? That's a common one. Except, if you're just a decent guy like me, that isn't enough. Love for people isn't enough. Good deeds or love or selfish acts outside of God are, to some of them at least, an affront. Baptism, or conversion? Perhaps, for a while. But if you don't conform to their way of thinking, they would have cause to call it all into question, even if they don't so much as say so.
So, how can they know? They can only know the same way that puts people off: the same way the thought police in 1984 found Winston Smith out: See how well someone rote responds to doctrinal and political questions. Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Is George W. Bush God's man? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Is John Ashcroft filled with the spirit? Do you spank your kids like the Bible says?
Some of you would object that among these questions are political questions. But, what is faith without an army? What is a religion without power and might to enforce its will? Name me one faith that has gained significant popularity, and stayed that way, without the help of governments and armies? So it would seem fair, on the face of things, from a purely rational and objective perspective, that their politic is as important as their doctrine. Without it, thei faith simply would cease to exist in a few generations.Faith is, after all, only as strong as the governments who protect it, and as widespread as the armies who disseminate it.
In the title of this topic I used the word 'judge'. But really, 'vetting' is a better word. That's what is done in politics to see if someone wants to run on a particular platform.
How else, but by thought investigation, are they to know the real thing? You might quote Matthew 7 where there's a command not to judge and a warning that in the same way you judge, you would be judged.
Since they are thought judging for doctrinal and political conformity, and I have done a bit of private judging of my own, my bet is, they have nothing to fear from said warning. They conform beautifully. If the same standard were applied to them, without hesitation, they would properly affirm with conviction all doctrines, support their Republican candidate, and, even in the face of military advice against it, will support torture as a means of extracting relevant information from political prisoners. I bet if that measure was applied? They would pass.
All in-groups test newcomers, and retest members to see if they're authentic. You look around your team section at the sporting arena, and you will quickly notice the person in the other team's garb. You notice in your profession, the person who seems to have bought their way in, with no qualifications to do the real work of your type.
Chimpanzees do it, babboons do it, even wolves do it. Even ants! In-group selection seems about as ubiquitous as mating.
In the case of Christians, where actions are not enough. Love is not enough, caring for people is not enough, the only thing they have left is thought conformity. Sounds difficult, on the face of it. Even they claim it's difficult. Except, human beings are exceptional authenticity meters. The Reptilian brain and mid brain act intuitively, and very often can detect things the rational brain cannot yet detect. It's just quicker back there because that is how they get out of danger. So, as appalling as this probably is to many people, I rationally see exactly how and why this happens. It doesn't create people like me, it only exposes us to ourselves first, and maybe to them if we choose to do so or they step outside the bounds of polite society and look at what we are objectively.
Some might object based on grace, but is that not for would-be reformers? Or those willing to place faith over reason and belief over rationality?
Unshakable faith? I think not. Faith is a delicate weak thing, a child on welfare who needs constant care and attention and coddling, or it will simply not survive en masse. A few aberrant exceptions that make it into their magazines notwithstanding. I think I know some of these aberrant exceptions: if things are as they seem, I may well be married to one.
I'll admit my bias, though: I realize, as I told the Wife the other day, I basically have no real god concept as she understands such things. Sure, raised in America in a Reaganomics Republican Christian family, I was given the package. My initial rejection of it was merely in the context of the package itself. Ultimate acceptance of it, what they would call conversion or reconversion or what have you, while there were some emotional experiences involved with it, did not bring about what many have as a concept of god or gods. If it's not reasonable to believe, I actually don't buy it. Not deep down. None of their apologetics could make me buy it.
Unlike what they would have you believe, it is not a 'hard heart' or 'stubborn will.' A phenotype against belief, as some are wondering now in the scientific community? I don't know. The science is really new on that, and I am not a geneticist and don't know how they intend to go about proving this.
But I question the idea that they don't have the natural right to basic ingroup selection activities that even ants do.
I go so far as to say they have the right to political ingroup-selection. I don't even disagree with them on all political grounds. I am not a liberal, more of an independent. I was once a Libertarian but for my own reasons went Independent.
If you don't believe what I said about faith's protectors and propagators being governments and armies, consider the following if you are of European ancestry:
St. Augustine in the 6th century CE (Or A.D. to Christians) eradicated universalism from Christianity, used the Roman State against the Donatists and gave you the idea of Original Sin. These are of exceptional importance: universalism has no armies. Original sin sets everyone in a default negative position, and eternal damnation is the best fear tactic. Augustine thought unbaptized babies who died are burning in Hell. Do modern apologists really know more than Augustine?
If you are of European descent, you owe your Christian experience to two conquests: King Clovis of the Galles (France) who was converted mid-conquest and converted pagans at the edge of the sword shortly after Augustine.
Charlemagne unified Europe in the 700s and finished converting it to Christianity, ensuring Mother Church's control and income from all of Western Europe. That's right, your Christian experience did not come from Sunday School or some well-meaning Christian friend. Quite directly, if you are of European descent, it came from 2 successful warlords. Without either of these two ravaging your ancestors, you wouldn't be a Christian right now.
This is true of all religions or faiths.
So, tell me that their conservative politics is not really their doctrine?
I only contend, from a rational standpoint, they have the natural right to ingroup selection.
I think I agree.
There are a lot of words here, lots of arguments, but I think you are simply saying that Christians should be allowed to associate with other christians.
I don't see the argument.
Am I over simplifying?
Bob
Many will claim that Christians have no right to claim who is or who isn't a Christian, even among themselves many will say this. Or they will say they have no right to judge.
I set out to prove not only that they can, but probably would cease to exist as a unit if they did not.
'strong faith' is a delusion. It is only kept intact, for most, via thoughtcrime analysis and vetting. Not only of their doctrinal beliefs but their real salvation: their political structure which serves to protect and propagate the faith.
Perhaps it is obvious to you. Many, however, try to claim that they can't or shouldn't 'judge'. I only contend that if they don't do their 1984-style thoughts checking, they and their megaliths will blip out of existence within a generation.
Personally, I’m not really sure where I’m going here, except to say that my experience with Christianity is that there are two distinct types – one of inclusion and one of exclusion. The exclusionary kind of Christianity can easily be seen in the fundamentalist Christofascist world view of the Ashcrofts, the GW Bushes and Falwells of this world. The more inclusive is that of the friend to whom I recently came out who believes that even agnostics have some sort of place in the grand scheme of things and that we’re not doomed to hell. The exclusionistic approach is like that guy I roomed with back in Massachusetts in my early 20s who believed that even ancient Native Americans who never heard of Christ are at this point burning in hell eternally no matter how good they were because they were not saved. The inclusionists are like a gay friend of mine who happens to be a Greek Orthodox Christian. He would not be accepted in some Christian circles, however, for obvious reasons. But then, I believe that even the Catholic Church is moving toward a more benevolent, inclusionist model. The most recent pope seems to be heading the church in that direction despite its very ancient and violent proclivities. I guess what I’m saying is that Christianity is seen by many as rather monolithic, and I don’t think it necessarily is. Some Christians even believe that there are biblical passages that support reincarnation. I wonder about this. The term “born again,” for instance. I put this forth as a theoretical proposition. Let’s say for the sake of argument that reincarnation is viable. If we’re “born again” in Christ, what this could mean is that we move closer to his supposed ideals of universal love for one another. But maybe we don’t do it all in one lifetime. This is not so different from the Buddhist perspective of moving closer to perfection and gaining additional life experience with each successive reincarnation. The better we are toward one another and ourselves, the closer we move toward the theoretical godhead, if you like. It’s about as sensical as any other theory; more so in my view. Definitely more so than there’s a heaven and hell, and most of us are doomed to that hell forever. That absolutely makes no sense to me.
I was at a small church many years ago, one of those where the audience actually interacted with the preacher. He said, "Don't ever call someone a brother or sister in Christ, unless you know for a fact that they've been saved."
My response was, "In other words, don't call anyone a brother or sister in Christ until you've judged them for yourself."
Needless to say, I was never invited back to that church.
This is not a criticism, just an observation.
Now that you have come out, or given up Christianity as a personal choice, you seem to have decided, anything and everything that is wrong is the Christian fault.
Tunnel vision, so to speak, because you have forgotten that all Christians, or persons that profess to be Christians do not share the views of these you have come in to contact with.
This seems to be a failing, or short sightedness of many Atheist.
Instead of seeking out your life’s work, in helping others, being a good person, and such things, because you didn’t need religion to be these thing, you pay more attention to the Christian faith than you did when you were a Christian.
Sure, you have every right to express your views, I’m not saying you don’t, but everything that is wrong in the world, and everyone who judges, and anything else you wish to place as a Christian fault, is not always Christian.
Have your forgotten there are many other faiths, and philosophies in the world?
Ah, sounds like the old "who's a real Jesus fan and who's a poser" bit you'll get in any fan club. Isn't that what a religion is? A fan club for a spirit instead of a rock band, movie, type of fashion or music? My only real misgiving about this whole discussion is one I have to be careful not to do myself as a fairly new atheist. I don't think all Christians automatically align themselves with conservatism. The liberal Christians probably prefer to keep a low profile and live by example instead of standing on soapboxes in public places with a big bad "Repent Or Else" sign to scare the heaven into prospective new Jesus fans.
I think that post 6 has expressed some reservation I’ve had with this topic. As I’ve said in other postings, Christianity isn’t as monolithic as it at first seems. Sure, the fundamentalist Christofascist view seems monolithic and all-powerful, but the fact remains that it is one branch. There are Christians out there that believe that Christ was a teacher along with the Buddha and Mohammed. These religions all seem to lead toward a central point. To go with the whole atheism as the only way is just as much an article of faith in my view as the Christofascistic outlook of theirs is the only way. We just don’t know. I awonder if we’re supposed to know.
I agree with post 7.
Wayne, I set out to prove in post 1 that they are not in fact wrong to do among themselves just as the wolves and chimpanzees do. In fact, it is only nature. I am not among them and perhaps never was, and so from the objective view of rationality I see what they are as merely products of nature and natural ingroup-selection processes.
Anthony, I don't blame you for not going back. They obviously have a narrow in-group process controlled by fear. You might wonder how many gays there are hidden in there. And I might wonder just how many closet atheists, people without a real god concept, there are in there quietly going along for sake of family or daring not find themselves out.
Johndy, I take your point. If you have (are born with?) a natural god concept, you're right.
Mine is not a dogmatic position, but it seems rational to observe myself to not having such a god concept. I love the world we live in. It is big and beautiful and full of wonders. I have, admittedly, always been naturally curious. And I have always found the 'god did it' answer to come back wanting, no matter which god.
I think you see people come out from Christianity or Islam as atheists, because for some of us at least, not only could we not resolve the doublethink and inhumanity of our own culturally prescribed religion, but we don't have the god concept many people do. Johndy, you may be right about us, only instead of it being a dogma, it may be an alternate phenotype or predisposition. Being raised around religion is not the same as having a predisposition to having spiritual type experiences and having the ability to see them as authentic despite rational proofs otherwise.
Is it like the difference between straight or gay, which seems biological to some of us? I can't look on a theist as 'stupid' or 'irrational' or any of the terms your typical dogmatic antitheists like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens does.
I have to wonder, though, if they, and I, are both byproducts of our biology.
You can bet I will be with fascination following this idea of a belief gene, or phenotype, or set of characteristics that lend one towards belief in a higher power. Or even the need for one.
I still contend in Western Culture, though, that to make such a determination, it would be necessary for the subject to be first liberated from the control tactics of mainstream culture: such things as hell, void, blackness, and so on. I do believe that there are people who are genuinely as curious about another word, just as I am completely fascinated with the workings of this natural world.
But no, I don't see us having disclosed our atheism as dogmatic: just missing whatever characteristics are necessary to believe in and desire some kind of higher power.
The closest I have ever had to a so-called god experience have always come from the natural or practical things: help at a soup kitchen, let a gay friend know they have nothing to fear - they are in a safe place despite the onslaught, even work I have done in the volunteer emergency services community as part of the Coast Guard. Worship and rituals and spirits are generally a drudgery to me.
But there are people of all types of spirituality who actually benefit from these types of things: they seek out in some other form of belief, with the same genuine curiosity I do when learning about a new bird's migratory patterns, or embrace the warmth of the sun on a spring day, or help someone out in need.
Guess this topic has strayed, but no: I don't think we're dogmatic. You are just finding us out as having no god concept, and you apparently do. Many anthropologists would agree with you and disagree with Dawkins: this belief or spirit or god concept is clearly an important element for most humans. Perhaps exploited by the dogmatic religious types.
And it is perhaps why those of us without it are finding ourselves to be misunderstood as either dogmatics, or unfeeling, or any number of other characteristics that waylay the misunderstood.
You are right, though: a god concept and a forced or popular religion are two different things entirely.
I learn about the stars, supernovas, black holes, and that is it for me. Giant, huge, curiosity, wonderful beautiful things. Carl Sagan speaks well of this to my mind. Others envision a need for something beyond this. Who is lacking what phenotype or genetic characteristics is hard to say. But I contest that for many of us this is not so much dogmatic as it is characteristics. It would be dogmatic if I were to claim that you, or my wife, or others with spiritual inclinations and experiences, was somehow shallow or stupid. I would not only be dogmatic but wildly mistaken. And you would be right to call me on it.
I agree with John's last post (along with many other views expressed).
However, John said, "the whole atheism as the only way is just as much an article of faith in my view as the Christofascistic outlook of theirs is the only way. We just don’t know. I awonder if we’re supposed to know."
Actually, I wonder if we can ever know. After all, the concept of a supreme being is a man made concept. It's like, man created God in his own image. I prefer to believe in a supreme being simply because that's more comfortable for me. Is that faith? I really doubt it. But, I don't really care.
Leo, you seem to be like a new convert wandering in the wilderness. You think you've discovered some truths (more like untruths) that have upset your belief system. And that's tearing you up.
If my analysis is correct, all I can advise is relax and rebuild a belief system that you are more comfortable with.
Bob
Bob, thanks for the words. Not so much torn up, as simply wanting to perhaps understand myself, something that will come with time. Many consider a lack of spirituality to produce some kind of emotional turmoil, which in my case it has not. Others consider spirituality to be some kind of weakness, which I think betrays their overlooking serious evidence - people like Dawkins and Hitchens.
This is why the idea of a belief phenotype fascinates me. If that ever gets discovered, none will be able to rightly call theists shallow, or atheists unfeeling and cold. Not based on being theists or atheists.
And if they're wrong? There turns out to be no such phenotype or genetic predisposition for belief among many?
I am human, so I will still be understanding of fellow humans.
I know Wikipedia is not a final source, but, here is an interesting introductory article to the God gene which only stirs my natural curiosity, and affirms what many anthropologists for centuries have contended about most humans. Apparently, most have it.
The lack of it seems a rational explanation for some of us.
Interesting article. Thanks for posting the link.
Bob
I feel that if it wasn't for the people who are strong vocal advocates of various groups that exist, then they would not build up and become popular. This was something I have pondered for a time and this is the conclusion I have come to. Being a non-confrontational, reserved person it was easy for me to say that it is obnoxious of extremists or vocal people of groups to preach their beliefs aloud, but if it was not considered to be socially unacceptable, then would we have a basis of what it is that we believe? Would we even have various groups and sides to begin with? Probably not. Cutos to those who do it. It is easy for people to take what you are saying the wrong way. But if you feel up to it, and you don't care if people get frustrated with you, then by all means do it. I along with some others will stay out of the way because we do not feel that we have to convert people to believe the same things that we believe. I see people as individuals and I do not judge them based on their groups unless the group is created to inhibit harm or crime. I don't have a problem with the guy who happens to sit beside me on a train who believes in God and keeps from forcing his beliefs on me. I have no problem with the Black student who receives a PHD and treats me in the hospital to save my life. I have zero issues with a blind guy who serves as a lawyer in court in a car accident case. It is part of being open minded I suppose.
Hmm. A belief gene. Fascinating, actually. I haven’t really done much research on the topic. Bob, you say that the concept of a supreme being is manmade. Purely manmade? I can neither gainsay that nor state with complete certainty that this is so. All cultures on the face of this earth, even ancient illiterate ones, seem to have some sort of god or gods. How did that happen? May I perhaps posit that there may be a central being, but as humans we don’t yet understand it? Leo, I’m every bit as fascinated by the natural world as anyone, but I just think that human consciousness is a very real part of this natural world. You brought up on another posting the growing evidence that an afterlife is an illusion. I guess from what I’ve read, scientists are very divided on this issue. In any case, I think human consciousness is perhaps the greatest mystery of all mysteries. To me, I find more comfort in the possibility of some sort of hereafter because the other side of the coin is too bleak for me. Maybe I’ve got an over-developed sense of cosmic justice. I can’t really abide that there absolutely isn’t any. Hitler never gets punished, not really. The people who were killed in the holocaust never get justice, not really. We remember those victims, yes, and we remember Hitler as one of the embodiments of evil, but all they are is memories. If this is all there is, then isn’t bearing/begetting children somehow pointless and even selfish? Who cares if the human race goes on? We might as well stop it here and now. In short, I guess I’m not very satisfied with the just cuz answer.
It happened because the ancients were afraid of lightning and thunder and volcanoes and all that so they thought they had to placate such things.
John, I usually agree with most of the things you say, but I can't buy the argument, "believe in God or Gods because the ancients did." Sorry, that dog don't hunt no more.
However, you're statement about consciousness is, I believe spot on.
To be any good, it seems that an after life has to have a conscious being involved somewhere. So what if I come back as a drop of rain, a speck of dust, or a tachyon. (Did I spell that last word right?)
It's back to Des Carte: "cogito ergo sum" "I think, therefore, I am."
By the way, Descarte walked into a bar one day. The bartender said, "will you have your usual?"
Descarte responded "I think not." and disappeared.
Now to Leo's God gene. I've got to admit that I've thought about it, and I've come to the conclusion that I just don't understand it.
Leo, can you tell us more about it?
Bob
They're not sure if it's a gene or phenotype (group of genes with specific characteristics that get triggered by events). But what it does is release hormones, dopamine for one, I can't remember the others. These are responsible for what is called spiritual or religious experiences, among other things. They don't know, but some have posited that this is how people are able to get into the metaphysical or spiritual as thoug it were real. It's really hard to test because of cultural memes (the religion(s) you grew up with), and our own personal need to understand consciousness, which Johndy eloquently put.
This is as much as I know now, which admittedly isn't very much.
Johndy, cultural anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists have had an answer to your question about religions all over the world. Religions are cultural memes which get transmitted through societies, selected for and against, just like genes do.
And our predeliction to believe any of this as children comes from the selective pressure of gullibility in humans, especially human children. A child will stay away from a dangerous situation if told to do so by an adult with a grave voice. Add to this our predeliction for stories, one of the reasons most humans find the sciences so difficult. We love to hear and tell stories, and we love to believe those stories. What family doesn't have its own lore and legends?
Skepticism of all of this does not come natural to us, because of the maladaptive qualities of necessary childhood gulloibility.
Note that Jesus and other religious figures refer to a childlike faith. I don't think this is by accident. An adult-like skepticism does not lead to the ingroup-selective process to create a meme we call a religion.
But your agnostic spirituality would come down to perhaps the god gene, if it is proven to exist.
My opinion? They may not prove a god gene any more than they have proven a gay gene. But they might demonstrate a few cooperative factors, genes / phenotypes and social / cultural factors, which create the state of perpetual unbelief or skepticism some of us call agnostic atheism.
I think there are more questions than answers.
One question I have, from trolling the web and ex-Christian sites, is why does there seem to be more male apostates than female? Even among the ex-Wiccans who are arguably not a fundamentalist lot, you find more male ex-Wiccans than female. When you research mixed-faith marriages, the great majority have the woman being a theist and the man being at best an agnostic deist.
It's definitely more widespread than the Abrahamic faiths, who are arguably the most militant about their skeptics and unbelievers.
For the delicate and sensitive, I am not drawing any gender conclusions, I am merely curious. And now that the gays have the freedom to have either their own churches, or participate in other gay-accepting churches, I wonder how some of this is going to pan out among them? My naïve hopefulness would guess that since they have been oppressed, they might be more likely to be more accepting of an unbelieving partner than straight people.
Anyway, I don't think one can be said to be born a skeptic: we are all born gullible for some practical evolutionary reasons. But if the god gene hypothesis proves to have some merit, we who may not have it probably do have the wiring necessary to skepticism without it being a negative or pessimistic fit.
I wonder about the stereotype of the pessimistic and despondent atheist, like Pascal writes about, is someone who has the genetic tendency for spiritual experiences but doesn't have a cultural meme that fits.
Would Blaise Pascal today, for instance, be something of a pantheist? He was all but a nature worshipper, only afraid to be so by the cultural meme of his time. Hence his own wager.
Anyway I personally am researching this stuff out, and will admit to two things: I am completely oblivious to spirituality when not put upon me by a cultural meme. And I am openly very curious about how and why these things run so deep for most humans. One thing I cannot do, though: I cannot agree with Dawkins and his kind who claim people looking for spiritual experiences or the afterlife are shallow. Dawkins and Hitchens and similar are so wildly mistaken and ignorant of cultural anthropology on this issue.
I might, like them, be missing a god gene or a god phenotype, or have some other tendencies that lead to a skeptical point of view. But unlike them, I sympathize with other humans' need to have spiritual experiences and explore these types of things.
It certainly doesn't make me smarter or superior, that I can envision my own end as going out of existence, leaving a healthy family behind and having done the best I could. It doesn't make my wife and others inferior that they imagine spiritual continuity and an afterlife.