Quote of the Day (plus an argument against said quote, because Richard Dawkins is an ASS)

[edenfalling]

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
---Richard Dawkins



I resent some man who doesn't know me from Adam coming down from on high and telling me what my religious beliefs are, as if he knows them better than I do!

I am not atheistic about any god. I am agnostic about all of them. In fact, I have been known to swear thusly: "By all the gods that anyone ever held holy..." which tells you something about my attitude toward all views of the divine.

This is not to say that I believe in such gods in the way Dawkins means (and may I say he has a horrifically reductive view of religion? he's as bad as fundamentalists, just in the other direction!), but I am open to the possibility that they might exist -- it is, after all, impossible to prove a negative -- and I do believe that they were real to their adherents, in the same way that I believe all currently worshipped deities are real to their adherents.

(We can debate subjective vs. objective reality some other day.)

Anyway, I do try to respect everyone's religion or lack thereof, but holy fuck, sometimes people get my back up!

*spits in Dawkins's general direction*

Comments

[edenfalling]

By definition, its an evolutionarily maladaptive trait, even before you get into tithes and time spent.

That right there is exactly the thing I am talking about. Where does he get off saying that something I find to be a great source of meaning, connection, comfort, ideas, challenge, etcetera, is maladaptive?

Look. Religion is the way people make sense of our inability to (personally, though perhaps not as a species as a whole) understand the whole of the universe, or control all our surroundings. Religion is how we cope with the unknown (and, perhaps, the unknowable). Religion is far more than 'god-vs.-no-god,' or any organized authoritative structure. And yes, some specific forms of that basic human impulse to come to terms with the world can become maladaptive, but to call the whole thing a waste because of some bad apples is like saying science is maladaptive because, you know, it produced the atomic bomb and there are always jerks who falsify results.

And anyway, atheism is a religion. It is a form of response to the immensity of the universe, and the question of why bad things happen, and so on and so forth. That is a religion, by definition. Also, I think atheism is amazingly preoccupied with god, in a way agnosticism is not, because atheism is focused (whether by design, or simply by accident of naming) on the question of god's existence. Agnostics can say, "I don't know," and get on with our lives and more interesting questions.

Also, Unitarian Univesalist religious education is pretty easygoing. We have, in fact, been accused of running a course in comparative world religions rather than teaching kids anything about their own (at least for the moment) religion. Basically, we say that the important thing is values, and that you find your own truth. If your truth is a traditional Western deistic faith, that's great. If it's strict atheism, that's great too. So long as it works for you, and you don't impose your views on those around you, we are glad to be in community with you and help you on your journey, as you, presumably, will help us on ours. The search and the community are the important things -- and putting values into practice by helping people in other ways as well.

[vehrec.livejournal.com]

He's got his reasons. If you ask me, the big one is that it wastes time and thought on things that have no material effect. There are far more productive sources of all those things you cite, I'm certain of it. Surely, there are alternatives to obtaining the positives of religion without religion, yes?

Your definition of religion is... odd to say the least. It's much too broad and can accept things that should never be religions. By your definition, the Materialist worldview is a religion. Since it rejects any notion of the spiritual at all, I can't believe that you actually mean that. It's not a response to the immensity of the universe, it has no answer to why bad things happen. But it is how I, at the very least, make sense of the world we live in. Likewise, I must disagree with your assessment of Atheism as more focused on the question of God's existence than Agnosticism. Most Atheists have for all intents and purposes answered the question and moved on, only returning to it when prompted. Agnostics on the other hand, have a big gaping unknown in their worldview and ought to be looking for some sort of definitive answer one way or the other. Both of these seem to be differences in definitions, which may be hampering out attempts to communicate significantly. Because to me, any argument that calls atheism a religion is as absurd as an argument that 1+2=4.

Yes, I know that the Unitarian church is very soft in such matters compared to others. Erasmus Darwin described it as a 'Featherbed for falling Christians' in the 18th century. I thought you deserved to know his opinions as best as I could remember and summarize them into a few sentences, since they seemed to directly impinge upon you in this particular.

[edenfalling]

But religion does have a material effect. It affects what I think and feel, which then affects what I do. This is one thing I mean when I say subjective reality is not as different from objective reality as many people would say.

Most Atheists have for all intents and purposes answered the question and moved on, only returning to it when prompted. Agnostics on the other hand, have a big gaping unknown in their worldview and ought to be looking for some sort of definitive answer one way or the other. Both of these seem to be differences in definitions, which may be hampering out attempts to communicate significantly.

Yes. You seem to assume I want or need answers to the question about god's (or gods') existence. I do not. I think this is why I equate athesim to fundamentalism, in some ways: both traditions claim to have the answer about god/s. I think the question about god/s is largely irrelevant and impossible to answer anyway. Also, I am coming at this from a philosophical perspective influenced by the classical skepticism of Sextus Empiricus, which says, IIRC, that definitive answers to metaphysical questions A) are probably illusory, B) are unnecessary, and C) can lead to dangerous dogmatism. So what you see as a gaping hole, I see as flexibility and an ability to prioritize and not get caught up in what I consider a side issue.

This is not to say that I do not like thinking about metaphysics and so on, just that I find that particular question really old and tired. I find that it has no relevance to my life, and since what I am thinking about in terms of metaphysics, ethics, religion, etc., is how to live what I consider a good life (and what a good life might be), I wish people would just let the god question lie and stop arguing over 'the truth.'

I am willing to define materialism as a religion. I am willing to define Marxism as a religion too, if it comes to that. I know this is not a commonly accepted definition, but I think that such belief systems do and must consider religious issues, even if the conclusions they reach are, in the traditional sense a-religious or anti-religious. The fact that they are addressing non-scientific questions at all (by which I mean ones that cannot be disproved via experiment, such as ethics) makes them religions in some sense. If materialism has no explicit answer to 'why bad things happen,' it has an implicit one, which is 'the universe is random like that; deal.' I consider that a religious and ethical viewpoint.

[dameruth.livejournal.com]

You seem to assume I want or need answers to the question about god's (or gods') existence. I do not.

Yeah, this. For me, too. :)

Although, I would add that you seem to be saying in this comment sequence that spiritual = religious, which I don't consider the case. I would say that religion is an organized form of spirituality, and that it's possible to be spiritual/have spiritual feelings without being religious.

But that's a whole 'nother discussion . . . ;)

[edenfalling]

I would say that religion is an organized form of spirituality

Whereas I would say that spirituality is a catch-all term for various disorganized or non-standardly organized expressions of religion. *grin* Same idea, but I can see how the choice of terminology could get very confusing.

[vehrec.livejournal.com]

But religion does have a material effect. It affects what I think and feel, which then affects what I do. This is one thing I mean when I say subjective reality is not as different from objective reality as many people would say.

It doesn't do a whit to change the fact that the only material effect of religion can be described by the words 'placebo effect.' Subjective reality vs Objective is interesting, but ultimately the objective reality has primacy.

Yes. You seem to assume I want or need answers to the question about god's (or gods') existence. I do not.

Some of us consider this an almost criminal lack of curiosity.

I think this is why I equate atheism to fundamentalism, in some ways: both traditions claim to have the answer about god/s. I think the question about god/s is largely irrelevant and impossible to answer anyway.

Really? But if a lot of the god-theories were true, they would represent a fundamental alteration in the underpinnings of the world. Even the weakest deistic system represents something very different from a universe without a god. If you have any desire to understand the way the world is, this is a fundamental question.

Also, I am coming at this from a philosophical perspective influenced by the classical skepticism of Sextus Empiricus, which says, IIRC, that definitive answers to metaphysical questions A) are probably illusory, B) are unnecessary, and C) can lead to dangerous dogmatism. So what you see as a gaping hole, I see as flexibility and an ability to prioritize and not get caught up in what I consider a side issue.

Jeez lousize. I see from online biographies and summaries of his philosophy that Sextus seems to have been opposed to knowing anything through reason, inference, and possibly anything other than direct sensory evidence at this exact moment. Even for an 1800 year old Roman, that's a little extreme. Yeah, approaching things skeptically is generally good practice, but it is quite harmful to remain skeptical. He apparently recognized this, and recommended that people basically mooch off the opinions and lifestyles of others without consideration. And you consider this a worthy example of how we should lead our lives and make life shaping decisions?

I am willing to define materialism as a religion. I am willing to define Marxism as a religion too, if it comes to that. I know this is not a commonly accepted definition, but I think that such belief systems do and must consider religious issues, even if the conclusions they reach are, in the traditional sense a-religious or anti-religious.[/quote] Uhh, what? Are you denying the possibility of a non-religious worldview? Your definition in this case is not only questionable, but laughable.

[quote]The fact that they are addressing non-scientific questions at all (by which I mean ones that cannot be disproved via experiment, such as ethics) makes them religions in some sense. If materialism has no explicit answer to 'why bad things happen,' it has an implicit one, which is 'the universe is random like that; deal.' I consider that a religious and ethical viewpoint.

Religion is not anything that deals with ethics. Hell, the Divine command theory of ethics is so vastly inadequate as to completely invalidate all insistence that ethics and religion are in any way related. Religion does not equal ethics, in fact it should have no bearing on ethics at all.

Your problem isn't that you've got a faulty definition of religion. You've mislabeled philosophy as religion.