The Semantics of Secular Labels
March 3rd, 2007 by Yana KanarskiEver since I started doubting the existence of God, I have frequently encountered confusion between the numerous labels used to describe non-theistic belief systems. This is most commonly seen between the words “atheist” and “agnostic,” both of which signify the absence of definitive belief in a deity. At first glance, the distinction may seem obvious: an atheist disbelieves the existence of God or gods, while an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God and thus refuses to commit to either belief system. However, in reality these two terms tend to overlap to the extent that two people holding exactly the same (non)belief may label it differently, one identifying as an agnostic and the other, an atheist. Further, one’s label of choice is heavily influenced by the public perception of these terms, the word “atheist” being the more pejorative of the two in the eyes of the public. This probably convinces many non-theists to describe themselves as “agnostic,” as this label seems more palatable and less presumptuous than “atheist.” If one carefully examines the definitions of these terms, however, one should become more hesitant at rejecting one label for another.
I will begin my exposition by quoting from Bertrand Russell’s 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
[. . .] As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. [. . .]
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.
It seems fair to say that nearly every self-identifying atheist would agree with Russell’s strictly epistemological stance regarding the impossibility of ultimate proof. However, the word “atheist” by itself should not imply complete certainty in the nonexistence of God, although it is commonly misconstrued to do so. Indeed, this term would fall out of use if it had to imply absolute certainty, and “agnostic” would take its place. In response to people who believe they are obligated to call themselves agnostics unless they are 100% sure about what they believe, Richard Dawkins points out:
“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
Well, alright; you get the point. But this begs the question: exactly how improbable do you need to perceive God’s existence to be in order to call yourself an atheist, instead of agnostic? In other words, where do you draw the line? There seems to be no definitive answer to that, and it’s entirely subjective. However, on page 50 of his book The God Delusion, Dawkins suggests a probability spectrum of individual human judgment about the existence of God (mind the British spelling):
- Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
- Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
- Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
- Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
- Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
- Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
- Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
Note that this spectrum is continuous and the seven categories represent milestones along the way. Dawkins considers himself to be “in category 6, but leaning towards 7” (51). He also mentions that he would be surprised to meet many people in category 7 because “Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist” (51).* He mainly includes this category for symmetry with category 1, which has a substantial number of members.
Still, there’s a lot more to the definition of “atheism.” Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).
Thus, the term weak atheism is a very broad category encompassing a whole slew of nontheistic belief systems, including:
- Apatheism (a.k.a. apathetic agnosticism)—neither believing nor disbelieving in God because one doesn’t care enough about the issue to make a decision
- Ignosticism—believing that the question of God’s existence is meaningless because it doesn’t have any verifiable consequences
- Implicit atheism—lacking belief in God because one has never been introduced to such a concept or has no way of comprehending it; this is the category that includes infants and young children, individuals with severe mental disabilities, animals, etc.
- Many agnostics—people who believe that they personally have no way of knowing whether or not God exists
Looking at the etymology of the word “atheist” (Greek, a-theos) supports the notion that it shouldn’t imply anything other than a lack of belief in deities. In that sense, it should be synonymous with the word “nontheist” because they both share a prefix of negation and the same root word; however, there are certain connotations that have become associated with the word “atheist” that make many people reluctant to use it, most of which stem from a common misunderstanding of that term and cultural intolerance towards people who use it to describe their beliefs. To avoid sounding arrogant or absolutely certain whether or not God exists, many people who regard God’s existence to be considerably improbable choose to use the word “agnostic,” or a similar term, to describe what they believe. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this; perhaps one wants to put emphasis on a certain aspect of non-theistic philosophy that is best captured by that particular word, thus conveying a more desirable or accurate image of themselves to the public. However, it is important to realize that most of these terms are completely compatible with atheism, so one can very easily be both an agnostic and an atheist.
Now, I would like to elaborate on the various nuances of the word agnosticism, which has its own share of misunderstandings. In its broadest sense, this term refers to the philosophical view that certain claims—especially metaphysical ones about God and the afterlife—are unknown and possibly unknowable. But there’s a problem with a strict interpretation of that idea, because even many theists do not claim to be completely certain that God exists; they simply believe that he does and openly admit that their belief is based on faith. Thus, there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because the vast majority of the population wouldn’t seriously expound the existence of God with the same epistemological certainly as Descartes’ statement, “I think, therefore I am,” if they even consider that statement to be 100% certain. As a result, many found the need to qualify the term “agnostic” further by dividing it into different categories that each stress different things. These include, but are not limited to, strong agnosticism (the view that the existence of God or gods is unknowable by nature or that humans are not equipped to judge it), weak agnosticism (the view that the existence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, so one would have to withhold judgment until more evidence comes in), apathetic agnosticism, model agnosticism, ignosticism, agnostic theism, agnostic spiritualism, and agnostic atheism. I won’t elaborate on each of these terms, but the reader is invited to research them further.
Then there’s the issue of being agnostic towards some ideas more than others, like the different conceptions of God. Most people, for instance, would consider Zeus less likely to exist than the God whose general characteristics are defined by the major monotheistic religions. Some people may also find the God of the deists more likely than a personal God who answers people’s prayers and concerns himself with daily human affairs. It should therefore be relevant to assign different probability values to each of those beliefs, rather than brushing them off as equally likely and equally improvable. Recall that Richard Dawkins argues that the existence of God (any type of God) should have probability values associated with it; he also assigns a term to those who do not commit to either theism or atheism but are willing to evaluate the evidence for God’s existence and subject it to a probability spectrum, calling their belief Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP). This contrasts with Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP), which is appropriate for questions that can never be answered and for which the very idea of evidence is not applicable. To demonstrate an example of the type of question that would fall into the PAP category, Dawkins cites the idea that others see red the same way he does, instead of seeing, say, the color green but calling it red. The existence of God, he argues, should not be classified into that same category but instead be open to examination with whatever evidence is available. In fact, the whole idea of a probability spectrum does not apply to PAP because it is beyond the reach of any type of evidence, so it would be incorrect even to place God’s existence at the 50/50 mark if one classifies that question into this category.
Because agnosticism is such a vague term with so many possible meanings, and because I consider God’s existence to be very unlikely, I have decided that it makes the most sense to refer to myself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic. Right now, I would even put myself in category 6 of Dawkins’ probability spectrum, though I probably wouldn’t lean towards 7 quite as much as Dawkins himself. Before I self-identified as an atheist, I was probably in category 5, leaning towards 6, but I thought I would always identify as an agnostic because I didn’t have absolute proof of God’s existence and considered it impossible to obtain. In that sense, I am still an agnostic, but only in the same way that I am towards Zeus or Thor. After reevaluating all the evidence for God and gaining a better understanding of the terms atheist and agnostic, I had finally decided to change my label—something I never thought I would do. But there really wasn’t much significance in that: it was all a matter of semantics. In fact, one can argue that I was an atheist for years before I called myself by that term, since the very definition of atheism can encompass most agnostics.
Aside from the terms atheist and agnostic, which relate directly to belief in God, there are other labels out there with which nontheists often identify. Because the rejection of religion usually results from reason and a factual analysis of the world (the perspective of rationalism and freethought), most nontheists tend to be skeptics and hold a naturalistic worldview, dismissing supernatural claims due to a lack of evidence to support them. Of course, there are always exceptions, since there are people out there who lack a belief in God but still hold on to superstitious beliefs such as astrology or luck, and some who even believe in spiritual entities such as ghosts or follow nontheistic religions like Buddhism or Taoism. Likewise, one can hold a skeptical or even naturalistic worldview without necessarily rejecting the idea that there might be a God out there, as long as this God does not interfere with the laws of physics and allows everything to be tested with the scientific method. However, people who do not reject this type of god are either agnostics, who are uncertain about his existence, or deists, who are very few in number these days because science has eliminated the need to invoke supernatural explanations for any phenomena (particularly human origins) and thus dismissed the God of the deists as a superfluous hypothesis. This is why most rationalists were deists a couple centuries ago but tend to be atheists or agnostics today. Recently, a new movement has emerged to unite everyone who holds a naturalistic worldview by assigning them a more positive-sounding name: the Brights. Given that there are already so many labels describing these freethinkers, one may think that this movement is unnecessary and excessive, but a closer look reveals that there really isn’t a sufficient umbrella term that fits everyone with this view. The word “naturalist” is ambiguous and often associated with scientists, and words such as “atheist” and “agnostic” tend to stress one’s position on God and do not apply exclusively to those with a naturalistic philosophy.
Most nontheists also feel the need to subscribe to an ethical philosophy instead of rejecting all morals simply because there is no Supreme Being to dictate them for everyone. Thus, they tend to be humanists, affirming the dignity and worth of all people and appealing to universal human qualities to determine right from wrong. They often use the term secular humanism to distinguish themselves from religious humanists, who also base their moral decisions on human values.
It is very unfortunate that people who lack a belief in God are so misunderstood by our society and have to deal with such a large variety of labels simply to describe their common-sense skepticism. Why is it that calling oneself an atheist, which is the easiest, most direct way of conveying one’s lack of belief in God, considered so taboo? Simply calling oneself an agnostic is more palatable, but it’s not very informative and directly avoids a clear rejection of theism. If we lived in a society in which the majority of the population worshipped the Flying Spaghetti Monster, perhaps a-spaghettimonsterism would face just as much opposition as a-theism does in our culture. I’ve decided that I will no longer give in to social pressure against proclaiming my disbelief in God in a direct fashion, and proudly call myself an atheist. However, I will not go as far as to demand every other nontheist to do this as well, because they may be facing different social circumstances that would make it more difficult for them. Besides, we’re just dealing with words.
* I anticipate objections to Dawkins’ statement from some theists and agnostics, so I will try to clarify what I think he means. Simply making a probability judgment about the existence of some entity has nothing to do with faith; it is perfectly reasonable to withhold belief in something for which there is no evidence, and even more so if the entity in question has extremely unlikely—even contradictory—qualities. To illustrate this, consider the statement, “I believe that fairies don’t exist.” Someone might object and say, “Well, you can’t prove that fairies don’t exist, so your statement is based on faith, in the same way that belief in fairies is based on faith.” What’s important to realize here is that it takes a much greater “leap of faith” to arrive at a conclusion that lacks evidence than one to which most of the evidence points. And if you admit that what you don’t believe in still has an extremely small chance of existing, you avoid this “leap of faith” altogether. The problem is that it’s simply impractical to go on stating things like, “I think the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is extremely improbable,” when you can get the same point across simply by saying, “I believe the IPU doesn’t exist.” Now, if some atheists claim to be literally 100% certain that God doesn’t exist, perhaps it’s accurate to say that they took a small leap of faith, but then again, you can make the same claim about people who are literally 100% sure there’s no orbiting teapot between Earth and Mars too small to be detected by our most powerful telescopes.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I like the scale from 1-7. Also nice that you included your own “rating”. I am probably a 7. This is simply because I had been a 6 for so long, and just got sick of it. I think that anyone who is not a 7 is a bit deceived. However, I remember something to the effect of Dawkins saying that on a scale of 1-7 in disbelief in god, he was a 6, and not willing to take that last leap that I (currently) feel very comfortable taking.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
To add to Yana’s post, this one (http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=218) that also discusses the continuous theism-atheism spectrum, but focuses on the “belief” region. It asks the critical question for believers: how far into the “belief” zone does a believer need to be to get into heaven? With reference to Dawkins’ above-mentioned seven-point scale, do only the category “1″ believers get into heaven, or do the “2″ and “3″ believers also qualify? Where’s the cut-off? And what if, god forbid, a person does believe in God, but just not enough to qualify for heaven? Such torment they must experience in hell, wondering why their god let them down.
Another issue with the “belief” spectrum is that there are more than 10,000 recognized religions, so we each must have a “belief” spectrum for each one. This poses a considerable burden of research, even for those of us with a broadband Internet connection. No doubt this is why most believers simply chose the religion of their parents — a convenient, if exceedingly incomplete, strategy for choosing our pathway to salvation. Moreover, each of us thus becomes a non-theist (atheist or agnostic) with respect to a huge number of religions. Remember this the next time some Fundie rants about the immorality of atheism: they’re all atheists, too. If they claim they are not atheists because they worship the One True God, point out that a billion Hindus would disagree with them.
So, what does it really mean to be a theist or an atheist, when each of us is both, to one degree or another, with respect to thousands of religions? I don’t think it’s an important question. With so many thousands of religions, what difference does it make to me if my neighbor happens to be a theist or atheist with respect to one or another of them? As far as I am concerned, that is a topic solely between my neighbor and his god, and all that matters to me is how his religion teaches him to treat me and our other neighbors. Indeed, with so many different religions to choose from, what objective yardstick can we choose to evaluate my neighbor’s behavior? Not his holy book, of course, because why should we choose his holy book over mine or our neighbors’? The only objective yardstick we can choose is secular law. That’s why the constitutional separation between church and state is so critical to a healthy democracy; indeed, to the *existence* of democracy. Only by eliminating the use of holy books from the process of public legislation can a democracy hope to exist.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Great entry, Yana! I hate labeling myself at school (though I have to) because people determine my label in different ways. I have found that more than 95% of my entirely Christian freshman class had NO CLUE what agnosticism was until I gave them a definition. It’s sad really. They live their lives on the basis of the only thing they have ever known from their parents. Even after I explain to them I’m agnostic a lot of them call me an atheist. However, if I ever DO call myself an atheist to anyone I notice I get LESS RESPECT than when I call myself an agnostic. Then I’ve had the situation of being called “heartless” because someone presumed I was an atheist. They don’t know my beliefs, my knowledge, or my morals– yet I’m called “heartless.” If anything, their religion blinds them into thinking the killing of pregnant women, infants, etc. is NOT wrong because the people disobeyed God– so they go on saying they deserved it. Well, woe to them. At least I have my freedom and the heart to be the ONLY one to fight for humanity.
I’ll have to call myself a 6. No one can ever my certain of anything, after all, anyway. There’s just extremely high probability that something doesn’t exist– thus, the 6.
Definitely keep it up.
-Sasha
March 4th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Grumpy Pilgrim writes “Another issue with the “belief” spectrum is that there are more than 10,000 recognized religions,”
Actually I think only Western Christianity is so obsessed with being the only “true” religion, separate and distinct from other religions. Most other religions don’t put such emphasis on internal belief systems, but on behaviors. They’re also pretty ready to honor “spiritual achievement” in other religions. Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet, Hindus know that all gods are avatars of ultimate truth/reality, etc.
Birth, growth, death, transcendence, regeneration, justice, mercy; every story we humans tell each other combines these elements in different proportions. There just aren’t enough plots for every one of these supposed 10,000 (recognized by whom?) religions to be completely unique, and most traditions don’t feel threatened by that.
Actually this classification system reminds me of one of the worst excesses of institutionalized religion: that of defining group membership by policing the boundaries, rather than drawing people toward the center. It might be important to you as an individual to define where you stand, but how helpful is it really in dealing with others?
You’re defining yourself by absence of something. Believers of the literal sort will view you as a deformed person or amputee, inevitably.
I mean, you do have a worldview and a set of guiding principles, not just an absence of belief in God. It might be worthwhile to accept the challenge put to Rabbi Hillel, and learn how to recite the whole of your “law” while standing on one leg (with your eyes closed and after 3 beers if you have a good sense of balance.) Then when someone asks you what you believe you can say “I’m an atheist” if you want to cut off the conversation (often the best use of your time.) Or if you have to work with the person toward some common goal, you can say something like “I believe it’s important to be self-aware and to treat others compassionately.” You’ll have a better chance of establishing common ground and a basis for continued relationship.
If you have to specify your religion for some official form or other, I suggest checking other and writing in “Jedi Knight.” If enough people do it they will have to make it a checkbox and that would be really cool!
March 4th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Ben:
I know how tempting it is to “go all the way” and declare yourself a 7 when you are so certain that God doesn’t exist, but I think that stems from a misunderstanding of this last category. You probably feel like you can’t view yourself as being completely committed to atheism if you don’t take that leap, which can understandably bother you, but not taking this last leap should by no means imply any lack of commitment. If that probability scale were about Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, most reasonable people (including Dawkins) would still count themselves in category 6, but this obviously doesn’t mean they give any serious consideration to the existence of these entities. From a practical perspective, they are in category 7 regarding God and other mythical beings, but that’s not what this category is meant to represent. It directly relates to epistemology, acknowledging the possibility that fairies and invisible unicorns exist, that no one except you is truly conscious, that we are all plugged into the Matrix, or that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago with a population that “remembered” a completely unreal past. You can’t logically disprove those things, but believing in them is ridiculous. Since this probability spectrum is continuous, perhaps you can count yourself as a 6.999999999 about all those things and God. It’s very tempting to round it to 7, which might be what you meant all along, but I’m just making sure you know what is meant by this category.
Sasha:
You are clearly an atheist, but I entirely understand why you choose to call yourself an agnostic around closed-minded, judgmental Christians. Of course, it doesn’t mean you’re lying, because technically you’re both an atheist and an agnostic, and I must admit that even I would avoid that label if I had to answer a question about my religious views in front of a violent religious zealot or during an important job interview. However, you do bring up a good point about the public perception of the word “atheism”; it reminds me of how Julia Sweeney’s parents reacted to the news that she was an “atheist”—they could handle (with mild disappointment) the fact the she didn’t believe in God, but they completely freaked out when they found out that she was an atheist (despite the fact that her lack of belief made her one by default). That shows just how much atheists are misunderstood by our society.
And speaking of misunderstanding atheism, I remember a debate I had with a one of Ken’s friends at the beach last summer. He brought up the fact that I couldn’t disprove anything, including God, and I admitted that this was true. He then concluded, “So you’re an agnostic, not an atheist,” to which I responded, “I’m an agnostic atheist.” Funny how he, at one point, admitted that people can’t even disprove Santa Claus—what high skepticism! If I didn’t know any better, I would have noted, “So you’re an agnostic, not a theist.”
March 4th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Re secular labels, “naturalist” has a 100+ year history of designating someone who holds a naturalistic worldview, and is far less off-putting than “bright”, see http://www.naturalism.org/history.htm#modern .
Re being agnostic about the supernatural: In denying the supernatural, such as god and the soul, naturalists don’t claim we can categorically disprove the existence of things for which there’s no empirical evidence. It’s notoriously difficult to prove things don’t exist, unless they happen to be logically impossible. It’s rather that we don’t clutter up our model of the world by believing in them, or by reserving a possible place for them. We believe on the basis of preponderance of the evidence, and absent that, we feel we’re justified in *not* believing.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Yana: I enjoyed your analysis. It brings to mind that almost every poll I’ve seen forces the respondent to say either “Yes, I do believe in God” or “No, I don’t believe in God.” Or, sometimes, they try to force answers like “No religion” or “Atheist.”
Your post makes me crave a new round of polls that ask the God question in terms of the ratings 1-7. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many people who “believe in God” would choose 2-6 rather than 1? And how many people who “don’t believe in God” might choose 2-6 rather than 7?
In short, there might be a tremendous amount of overlap that could be uncovered by such polls. Perhaps “believers and non-believers are actually a lot more alike than they think. Maybe they can stop their wars of words and live in peace together!
Perhaps there are a lot of 4’s out there who think they are at odds with other 4’s, because some go to church resentfully and others go to church happily, though, intellectually, they are essentially at the same position as to whether “God” exists.
Perhaps much of the “dispute” in today’s culture is really a matter of the labels people are attributing to these numbered positions, rather than to the intellectual positions themselves.
By the way, I consider myself a “6″ with “ignostic” leanings. I’m still working through the best way to characterize myself, as you can see here http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=478 and at other places on this blog.
I really enjoyed (and agree with) your comment about the different reactions one can expect, depending on whether one calls oneself an “atheist” or just one who “doesn’t believe in God.” The reason I don’t use the term “atheist” is because many conservatives associate it with a person absolutely devoid of a moral system (despite all evidence to the contrary, in most cases). I’ve considered using “Bright” in the past, but it just seems to haughty, even after trying to explain it to a Believer.
To potentially unanchor the entire debate, I am entirely convinced that many church-going people I know are “6’s”, their conception of God not being the cantankerous old Fellow in the Bible, but an ethereal Order, lacking sentience. Sometimes, when I hear that, I think, “Sign me up! I’m believe in God!”
March 5th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Misunderstanding in regard to belef/non-belief cuts both ways. Dawkins refers to Jung’s statement, “I don’t believe, I KNOW” . but projects his own simplistic idea of religious faith onto this statement. Jung was pretty out there in certain ways but there’s nothing to suggest he believed in God as an entity independent of the human mind.
From the “Art of LIving” lifted from hereL http://www.swans.com/library/art11/mgarci29.html#7
“If you should find, for instance, an ineradicable tendency to believe in God or immortality, do not allow yourself to be disturbed by the blather of so-called freethinkers. And if you find an equally resistant tendency to deny all religious ideas do not hesitate: deny them and see how that influences your general welfare and your state of mental or spiritual nutrition. But beware of childishness: whether you call the ultimate unknown “God” or “Matter” is equally futile, since we know neither the one nor the other, though we doubtless have experiences of both. But we know nothing beyond them, and we cannot produce either the one or the other. “
March 5th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Several of the previous comments cautioned against going all the way to “7″ on Dawkins’ probability spectrum, citing epistemological reasons. I see no such difficulty, at least with regard to the god of the Bible. The Bible contains so many contradictory descriptions of its god (e.g., infinitely cruel, yet infinitely loving; infinitely vindictive, yet infinitely forgiving; genocidal, yet life-giving; etc.) that I think we are justified in concluding that such an entity could not possibly exist.
Yet another argument in favor of choosing “7″ is the issue of miracles. One of the few ways of knowing that gods exist is that they perform miracles. Without miracles, the only remaining “proof” of any god’s existence is dreams and visions, which are subjective and unreliable. But consider, however, what our world would be like if miracles actually happened. Amputees would suddenly grow new limbs. Paraplegics would suddenly discard their wheelchairs and run marathons. The old would suddenly become young again. The dead would come back to life. Idiots would become straight-A students. Fools would become president (on second thought, I’d better scratch that one). Sports records would be shattered every week. We would all walk on water, feed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, and heal the sick. Everyone would win in Vegas and on Wall Street. We would all fly like birds and swim like fish. Beautiful Hollywood starletts would all find me irresistably handsome.
In other words, the Universe as we know it would not exist. Natural laws would not exist. The fact that they do exist testifies to the absence of miracles and the absence of gods. Gods — supernatural causes — were what pre-historic humans invoked to make the sun rise, the rains fall, the women pregnant and the hunts successful. They imagined supernatural causes for these seemingly random, unpredictable events, because they could not yet fathom natural causes. Natural philosophers (we now call them scientists) of the 18th and 19th century finally hacked away at this ignorance, replacing it with a new metod — the scientific method — of finding answers. Earlier philosophers would, no doubt, have discovered this method had the Christian Church not terrorized the population for the previous sixteen centuries. It is no coincidence that Martin Luther’s 95 Theses of 1517 c.e., which finally derailled the Church’s political power and corruption, began our transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era. Without that transition, we would no doubt still be burning witches, whipping slaves, treating women as chattel, blaming diseases on evil spirits, and teaching our children that the world is 6,000 years old. Indeed, who knows were human society might be today if natural science had begun to flourish in the 8th century instead of the 18th. Remember: nearly everything that distinguishes a First World country from a Third World country was created in just the last 300-400 years, with most of it arriving in just the last century.
I assume, of course, that science and technology are beneficial to human society in the long run, but that has yet to be proven. For all we know, an 8th century Enlightenment, and another millenium of scientific advances, might have ruined our planet and destroyed our entire species by now. Who knows, perhaps widespread atheism (or, at least, widespread natural science) actually will bring an end to the human race, and religion has been the only thing preventing that from happening.
Somehow, I think not.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Great to meet you Yana (and her sisters). Go ahead and call me a screwball…but I was still a 7 when I woke up this morning. Now, if you had offered a scale of 1-1000… indeed you are right, my choice might be somewhere like 995. The 1-7 scale seems to be somewhat ambiguous, especially if you are then going to start assigning values like 6.9999999 as actually being “6″. I know a few scientists (me is a scientist, too) who would have no trouble rounding 6.999999999 to 7. Just some food for thought… it’s amazing how we are actually (at least some of us) sliding up and down this theoretical scale of of belief in God on a moment to moment basis… In fact, I was about to agree with you, and call myself a 6 immediately after reading your response. However, I ended up reverting to 7 after I mulled it over for a minute.
Last night, I read some more Sam Harris, (The End of Faith) and he agrees with you that it is perfectly reasonable to have a bit of doubt about the unknown. However, do not let this blind you to the danger of unsupported faith, which is where I seem to be venturing, until science bails us out again, (like it always has).
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sam_Harris
March 5th, 2007 at 9:53 am
I also suggest the Wikipedia article; it’s quite good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
March 5th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Vicki- You said, “Western Christianity is so obsessed with being the only “true” religion, separate and distinct from other religions,” and went on to say that other religions recognize the spritual achievements of others. I disagree. Christianity shares that obsession with most other religions. They nearly all claim to be the only ‘true’ belief system. You point out Islam. Sunni vs. Shiite seem to be pretty obsessed with which sect is ‘true,’ and they sure seem to be obsessed against Christianity. Look at the differences between Hindu and Muslim that split India.
Maybe you are just particularly offended by Christianity, and not willing to make the same comparisons to other religions. I’m an equal opportunity religion hater. They are all bad. I don’t hate spirituality, I hate religion.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Well, I’ll try to explain my point again. Religion and science are 2 different types of discourse. Scientific discourse takes place at the point where human consciousness meets the material world and aims for objectivity. Its language is that of factual statements and Its goal is producing mental constructs/ideas/theories that can be tested against a reality outside the self.
Religious discourse takes place at the point where consciousness meets human biology and is necessarily subjective. Its goal is to produce certain mental states and behaviors desired by the adherent or by the group to which s/he belongs. It speaks in metaphor, poetry, art and ritual. It is quite possible to engage in this discourse, and to benefit from doing so, without “believing” in the objective reality of any of it.
Both types of discourse have enormous potential to both solve and to create problems for the human race. I don’t understand how anyone can believe that science alone can get us out of the present crisis. Eliminating religious belief will not eliminate irrationality, greed or violence from human nature.
grumpypilgrim says:
“The Bible contains so many contradictory descriptions of its god (e.g., infinitely cruel, yet infinitely loving; infinitely vindictive, yet infinitely forgiving; genocidal, yet life-giving; etc.) that I think we are justified in concluding that such an entity could not possibly exist.”
Grumpypilgrim you have met the enemy and he is Us! Substitute “almost unimaginably” for “infinitely” if you’re picky about definitions, and you have described the human race. Not surprising since we invented Him!
March 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
grumpypilgrim:
Perhaps it’s possible to make a case for placing certain versions of “God” into category 7, if this God has logically-contradictory qualities or entails certain predictions for how the universe should behave that can be falsified through a reductio ad absurdum argument. Some skeptics may appeal to the Regress Argument to claim that we can’t even prove that LOGIC works, thus barring everything from being placed into category 7, but many people don’t find that convincing. I must admit that the Christian God can be logically disproved if you take his characteristics seriously, though some people I’ve debated claim that he is beyond logic, which, to me, just seems like a cop-out. Anyway, Dawkins didn’t just have the Christian God in mind when he laid out his probability spectrum, but was referring to any version of God as a sentient, supernatural being who created the universe. I myself consider the God of the deists way more likely than a personal God, but I view both as extremely improbable.
Ben:
I think your level of disbelief in God is more-or-less equiavalent to Dawkins’ (he said he is agnostic about God to the same extent as he is about fairies at the bottom of the garden), but you just interpret the spectrum differently. As far as I know, he invented the 1-7 spectrum, so it’s reasonable to conclude that category 7 was only intended to represent total certainty. You can personally feel “total certainty” through faith, which is true for members of category 1, but his entire point was that atheists try to avoid faith, so they can only appeal to logic (and epistemology), which can take them very close to the end of the spectrum but not to the very end. I also agree that people’s position in the spectrum constantly changes, which seems true for both theists and atheists. For instance, people’s faith may increase when they witness an improbable event they interpret as a miracle, or decrease when they experience a tragedy and wonder why God let it happen.
P.S. I only have one sister.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Devi and other posters:
What makes you think eliminating religion will reduce violence, greed, and intolerance? Governments which have adopted atheism and the abolition of religious institutions as official policy have been among the most murderous in human history.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Vicki:
Eliminating religion certainly won’t abolish all the violence, greed, and intolerance in the world, but I am certain it will significantly reduce them. Do you really think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict won’t benefit from a lack of irrational religious conviction from the people involved, who would no longer be able to claim that God is on their side? All those people, including children, who are literally willing to lay down their lives for their God with expectations of reward in the afterlife would surely lose much of their fervor. Religion also has a tendency to breed irrational hatred towards people who don’t share a particular dogma or behave in accordance with an outdated tradition—hatred that could NOT be justified on any secular grounds. Granted, I can’t make this generalization about all religions, particularly some Eastern ones like Buddhism, but such a large portion of the world subscribes to the intolerant forms of religion that the net effect of eliminating all religion would be positive. Or we can focus on eliminating only those religions which rely on personal deities whose whims supercede all human notions of morality, not the ones that merely posit a harmless spiritual “Order” in the universe.
The point I’m trying to make is that we should focus all our efforts on promoting rational thought and an ethical system derived from it—namely, humanism. This would include freedom of speech and the enforcement of basic human rights to live happy, healthy lives devoid of suffering and persecution. The goverments you’ve cited were misled and corrupted by greed and a thirst for power; but totalitarianism and communism are NOT atheistic values. Sure, the leaders who set up those governments happened to be atheists, but all their abuses of human rights were not based on atheistic ideologies and were instead derived from unproven political theories popular at the time. Also, I would oppose the adoption of ANY official belief system by a government, INCLUDING atheism. People should be free to examine all the evidence for any claim before accepting it as true, and accepting atheism on blind faith (regardless of whether or not it’s accurate) is almost as bad as blindly accepting Christianity or Islam. Thomas Paine expressed it very well when he said, “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” There’s no need to suppress information if you’re trying to promote the truth, so forcefully suppressing religion was a bad move for those atheistic governments; it could, in fact, make people find religion more alluring, making them wonder, “What is it that they are hiding?” People who truly believe atheism results from a thorough examination of ALL evidence, including religious texts, would by no means try to hide any of it from the public.
Also consider the following quote by Steven Weinberg:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Secular morality has been shown to work very well, so religion is not necessary for people to treat each other nicely (just look at the most secular countries in the world and compare them to religious ones like the US). On the other hand, religion often makes people ignore their own moral compass and commit horrible acts against humanity to please their God. Thus, I am entirely convinced that eliminating religion will be a step forward for human civilization.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Putting me in the same boat with Dawkins… okay, I gladly accept that. You have a gift with words Yana. You are right (again), that I am not certain that God does not exist. However, I do find myself “believing” that God does exist…if that makes any sense. To this end, when stories of miracles come along, or some “evidence” that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, or just another preacher/reverend/minister/pope spouting off, I am very wary.
At the foundation of my person, and rooting every thought which I entertain, is the notion that there is no afterlife, no God, no supernatural, no Creator. So, how bout those Mets…
(Vicki)
We atheists don’t like religion being foisted upon our children. When a child is born, she does not have a religion, except that which is put in front of her. Religion is based upon folklore which at one time proved important to survival. In the modern world, religion has been phased out in places where it has been exposed to critical analysis. I hope you can see the danger inherent as globalization continues, and our unbending Christian beliefs clash with the unbending other HALF of the world. Ignorance will always be the greatest danger that faces Earth. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we keep religion out of school, and reduce irrational belief in absurdities like Christianity and Islam.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Yana writes:(just look at the most secular countries in the world and compare them to religious ones like the US
If you mean W. Europe/ Scandinavia, they all have state=supported churches. The established churches receive tax support and religion is taught in state-supported schools.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Oops, meant to say that I find myself ‘believing’ that God does NOT exist.
Here is a link to address the claim that Christianity is better (or worse) than other religions…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
And for the doubters that humans embrace over 10,000 religions…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions
March 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Ben writes: (Vicki)
“We atheists don’t like religion being foisted upon our children.”
Umm, I can’t recall offering religious instruction to anyone’s children. Just mentioned the bit about religious ed. in W. Europe to correct the impression some of you have that these countries are secular.
“Religion is based upon folklore which at one time proved important to survival. ”
You’ll get no argument about the folklore part from many religious believers. You’ve simply bought into the fundies line that “real religion”=fundamentalism, Based on your wikipedia link, about half of the world’s Protestants belong to denominations which believe the bible can be subjected to critical study like any other book. Add reformed Judaism and the dharmic religions, plus a good many Catholics, and that’s a signficant portion of the world’s believers that agree the religious writing is a collection of myths and moral maxims. They would just differ with you that religion no longer has anything to offer humanity.
” religion has been phased out in places where it has been exposed to critical analysis. ”
See the points i made earlier re: W, Europe Religion there has not been phased out, rather drained of much of its power to harm while preserving its progressive moral values.
“I hope you can see the danger inherent as globalization continues, and our unbending Christian beliefs clash with the unbending other HALF of the world.”
All religions bend in one direction or other over time as people adapt to new conditions. Religion is highly adaptive in a cultural sense. Ever been to a modern synagogue? Did you see any facilities for animal sacrifice? The Jewish faith, has largely eliminated the worst traits of the Old Testament God. Christian fundies claim to be the only old-time religion but many of their beliefs are of modern origin. The formalized “born -again” experience or “altar call” so important to evangelicals dates only to the 19th century. Christian fundamentalism is highly innovative, just not in the service of what we humanists recognize as “the good.”
I see the main danger is that we are evolving technically/scientifically much faster than we are culturally/ethically/spiritually. Based on what I’ve seen of the new “dogmatic” atheism, I don’t think it holds out much of a solution.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I don’t think that most of the world’s ills may be left at the feet of religions, or belief in God. Most of us are stupid, vicious, or greedy without religion or God’s will.
I remain a practicing Roman Catholic, and find people to be my favorite species. I perceive no insurmountable obstacles to being humanistic and Roman Catholic (and a Democrat). Faith may be a bridge between observable reality and my religion. But, notwithstanding any beliefs we all have choices to make whether to be compassionate, generous and merciful to ourselves and others. People have been almost always kind to me and I believe in people and their fundamental goodness.(http:/dangerousintersection.org/?p=788).
Let’s try this, if you don’t ridicule and abuse me too much for my theism, I could care less whether you are a theist, agnostic or atheist. Let’s play!
March 6th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Yes, the problem is the human ability to rationalize that the harm they do to others is justified - either the person “deserved” it or the harm is in the service of some greater good… Obviously there will be many more examples of horrific crimes where the rationalization is couched in religious terms. This is statistically unavoidable because throughout most of history there was no alternative non-religious or materialist worldview.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Regarding my position on this belief/non-belief spectrum, I guess a beginning Buddhist my response would be that it indicates an error in thinking as inChien-chih Seng-ts’an,’s Verses on the Faith Mind:
If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind….
Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject, that we do not see the true nature of things.
Be serene in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.
(lifted from http://evelynrodriguez.typepad.com/pointingtothemoon/)
For at least 10 years or so I’ve subscribed to Wittgenstein’s views in the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus:
6.51
Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.
For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said.
(By “said,” he means stated as verifiable proposition.)
6.53
The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other — he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy — but it would be the only strictly correct method.
and
6.52
We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
6.521
The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.
(Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?)
6.522
There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.
-Lifted from http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t652en.html
March 6th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Ah, a Wittgensteinian in our midst! How delightful!
March 7th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I agree with Vicki, in the last generation we have developed the capacity to end the human species but, unlike in other eras of technological and social development there has not been a concurrent development of an ethical and moral structure to move the species forward. I have written on this topic before in these pages, and in my own writings.
Regarding such, what is the first principle?
March 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
To me it seems you are living in a fantasy world. I simply cannot afford to buy into things like karma, horiscopes, fate, *the mystical*, afterlife (or previous lives), Creators, deities, spirits, superstition, God, etc.
LIFE is too precious to me.
Vicki, I apologize if I made it seem like you (personally) were the one “foisting religion on our children”. I was actually referring to the HUGE problem facing our nation in terms of Creationism invading our SCHOOLS! Following are some figures (provided by Sam Harris) which frighten me as a scientist, American, and Good atheist…
“More than 50 percent of Americans have a ‘negative’ or ‘highly negative’ view of people who do not believe in God; 70 percent think it important for presidential candidates to be “strongly religious.” Because it is taboo to criticize a person’s religious beliefs, political debate over questions of public policy (stem-cell research, the ethics of assisted suicide and euthanasia, obscenity and free speech, gay marriage, etc.) generally gets framed in terms appropriate to a theocracy. Unreason is now ascendant in the United States — *IN OUR SCHOOLS*, in our courts, and in each branch of the federal government. Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world.” (emphasis added)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/the-politics-of-ignorance_b_5053.html?p=2
March 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Echoing what Ben just wrote, the faith card plays well in American politics. Here’s a recent example. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1077
March 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Ben, why do you think it is that in Germany, where children receive up to 9 years of formal religious instruction in public school, the population is many times more likely to believe in evolution? Is the problem religion qua religion, or something else?
Could it be that when religion is taught as something that can be studied, criticized, and evaluated for its essential truths, and science is taught as science, everyone benefits? If you want to fight UNREASON, promote critical thinking, but don’t attack religion.
I’m not advocating teaching religion in public school by the way. My Anabaptist ancestors would be turning over in their graves if I did - they were the first ones to propose it as a government policy.
I just don’t get why atheist-evangelists deliberately alienate their potential allies by making pronouncements about culture, history, religion while remaining largely ignorant of same. Thinking that Wittgenstein’s idea of the mystical has anything to do with horoscopes, for example or that Jung’s “I don’t believe, I know!” is equivalent to the same statement uttered by a Southern Baptist are 2 examples of this that come to mind.
Forgive me for throwing in Wittgenstein, I guess to put it simply I mean that the sphere of science is knowledge, and the sphere of religion or spirituality is wisdom. That is less precise than dear old Witty but I hope clearer,
Perhaps with a little more wisdom the atheist-evangelists might have more impact.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Ooops!
Above I meant the Anabaptists first formulated the principle of separation of church and state as a government policy. Good for church, good for state.
Also sorry for using such as harsh word as ignorant Ben. But it was for your own good. I really share your vision except for the part about not understanding what mythology is for. I just think that you and your fellows would be more effective if your understanding of religion was not so superficial and ahistorical.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
oops again. I meant to put the statement “but it was for your own good” in begin irony / end irony tags but this thing edits out HTML-looking things. As well it should.
I just want you all to be the best atheists you can be.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Vicki:
If the majority of religious people interpreted their myths and spirituality the way you do—without taking any of it too literally and letting it interfere with science and legislation—atheists wouldn’t be so vocal about the harm religion can do to society. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The number of people who deny evolution, oppose birth control and stem cell research, hate homosexuals, promote intolerance towards other belief systems (especially atheism), or even give up their lives for their God is too high to ignore. Religious moderation, by comparison, may seem harmless, but (as Sam Harris points out in this video) it can unwittingly perpetuate religious fundamentalism by promoting a taboo against criticizing people’s religious beliefs, thus keeping faith-based claims about morality (or the workings of the universe) from being properly examined and subjected to the same critical analysis that any other claim has to undergo.
You also mention that many secular countries (quite paradoxically) have state-established churches and include religion in public school curricula. Then, you go on to state that their social welfare and acceptance of evolution exonerate religion because of this lack of de jure secularity. But there is a huge problem with this approach: when analyzing religion’s effect on society, the most relevant information is the total religiosity of its people, NOT the official stance of the government on religion. And when you compare the religiosity of different countries with their level of societal health, you would notice a clear negative correlation. Sam Harris demonstrates this quite effectively:
You can also watch a YouTube video addressing this issue.
Now, I must admit how odd it is that America, which was founded on a secular constitution, is one of the most religious countries in the world, while many European and Scandinavian countries, which lack a secular foundation, have such low religiosity. Maybe it’s because religion has become a free enterprise in America as a direct result of its legally secular status. Maybe it’s because the lack of religious education led many of its citizens to put it on a whole different plane, away from intellectual inquiry and in direct opposition to scientific knowledge. Maybe there are many other factors involved; I don’t know! But what I do know is that statistics indicate that morality does NOT require religion. I could go on further and say that religion is inversely related to morality, which the data trends indicate, but I am wary that correlation does not imply causation. It would be quite difficult to make the opposite claim, though.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Thanks Vicki. I enjoy and admire your thoughtfulness and open mind. I wonder, how many YEARS total have you spent in college? Did you complete college level Statistics? Astronomy? Geology? Geography? Physics? Calculus? Sociology? I would like to know these specific classes, not so that I can point a finger, but so that I understand better what I am up against here.
Growing up, I was indeed exposed to PBS shows like Joseph Campbell’s “The Power of Myth”, against my will, albeit. So yes, I understand about mythology and it’s wonders (I have not taken any college courses in it, though). What I am proposing in my limited wisdom (ignorance?) from 20 years of public/private education plus my 31 years of life experience, is that ALL RELIGIONS should be treated like MYTHS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Myth
In terms of your Germany/Europe argument, I had not been exposed to that line of thinking, and will have to do some more investigation although it looks like Yana (and you) have provided a good start here.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Ben writes: “And for the doubters that humans embrace over 10,000 religions…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions/.”
Great link, Ben! Now, everyone, be quick: from that very long list of religions that Ben provides, pick the One True Religion.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Yana:
I think Sam Harris, Dawkins etc. are a good example of how intelligent people can get in the way of their own goals because the do not start from a place of compassion. They would benefit from more wisdom and practice in being skillful with others. They could gain this wisdom by experiencing their own lives moment to moment with awareness and an open heart, or by studying some of the world’s great wisdom traditions.
Is the best way to persuade someone to give up an irrational belief to call them stupid and weak? Is the best way to mobilize a mass movement to divide everyone into Us and Them, and put anyone who engages in any “God-talk” whatsoever firmly in the “Them” side of the line?
If you really want to work toward the goal of liberating humans from the suffering caused by man-made beliefs, you must start from a place of compassion. This is the message of all the greatest thinkers and most skillful practitioners of all religious traditions. Do not reserve for yourself the right to be the holder of truth, but be willing to believe that others may also be sincerely searching for truth. Help them by pointing out the errors in their thinking gently. Encourage clear thinking and awareness, and wrong thinking and delusion will fall away.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Ben, you write:
“I wonder, how many YEARS total have you spent in college? Did you complete college level Statistics? Astronomy? Geology? Geography? Physics? Calculus? Sociology? I would like to know these specific classes. I would like to know these specific classes, not so that I can point a finger, but so that I understand better what I am up against here.”
Would you like my SAT and GRE scores too? : } I know more about education than you because I have a Master’s degree in… EDUCATION. (said in booming Mr. Science voice)
In a former life I was a pre-med so I did 2 years of college calculus, Organic Chem, I can’t remember Statistics or Sociology.I did not do college-level physics because I switched from pre-med as a junior. I had physics in high school though and it was one of my favorite subjects. Science instruction at my high school was top-notch but despite that I mostly did science and especially math in order to be able to go on to the next education level, the way most people do religion do get into the afterlife. I know that some people can have luminous transcendent experiences through the study of math and science but that path has mostly been closed to me so far.
Why do you think I am “against” you?
I don’t think that belief in anything is required to know how to act ethically. I do know that for me at least there can often be a big gap between knowing how to act ethically, and actually acting ethically on a day to day basis. To act ethically, I must somehow let go of wanting to always be in the right, and wanting to always to have things the way I prefer. Some people can achieve this sort of non-attachment to ego seemingly without effort, others through study of mathematics or science. For me the main approach is through mythos, knowledge that cannot be transmitted directly through verifiable statements, but only indirectly through art, literature, and ritual or spiritual practice.
With regard to an afterlife, this is what I try to practice:
“The point is, where we go after we die isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a speculative question, a question about the exotic mystery of what comes next. It is a question about what we are, how we must live, how we are to face what happens, moment after moment. I feel this especially when I do ceremonies, even if it is just the daily service. Entering ritual space, you enter the endlessness of time. There’s no play acting involved. You just plunge in, with calmness, ready for whatever will happen. If we could live this way all the time, giving ourselves over to the daily endless ritual of living and dying in mystery in the middle of the moments of our lives one after the other, then we would be, as Wumen tells, us, masters of our lives, using whatever circumstances arise as our path for this moment.”
from http://www.everydayzen.org/teachings/talk_mumonkan47.asp
This is not so different from the approach of the wisdom teachings of many religions. The parable of the prodigal son is one variation on the theme. The dutiful son who complained that he was not rewarded for his good behavior at the feast given for the prodigal son revealed that he had not grasped that the point was not to be rewarded for good behavior by eternal life in heaven but to enjoy the relationship with his father from moment to moment. Eastern Orthodox Christianity has a strong tradition of equating eternity with a single transcendent moment.
There are a lot of miraculous stories that have adhered to Siddhartha Guatama, the Buddha. One is that when he was born he cried out “Worlds above, worlds below, there has never been anyone on the earth like me.” You can believe that the story really happened (or just not care too much about what “really happened”) You could say, “It’s just a myth, the sort that primitive people habitually attach to the birth of their heroes.” Or you could recognize the other layer of meaning: that this is what every baby is shouting when they take that first gasping wail.
I think the latter leads to greatest insight.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Ben…
Picking on the “college card” is a dicey proposition. Chomsky once made the observation that college educated people were the least likely to be revolutionaries because by the time they had matriculated they had bought into the status quo.
Besides, education does not always–nor, I think, often–end at the doors of a particular school. You are “up against” someone who is obviously well-informed and articulate. Argue with her on the merits of the ideas, not of the basis of Old School Ties.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I agree with Jason. Far too many bloggers are more concerned with their opponent’s credentials than with their opponent’s ideas. Questioning someone’s creds is merely a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I guess it is hard to ask something like that without sounding like an ass. I was just curious…like I said. No offense intended (that’s as close to an apology as I get in this post). If I remember, she mentioned my ignorance…something which I try hard to improve through study. I was curious if maybe she was the pot calling the kettle black, and that she was possibly ignorant in some important areas (which I consider important). A lack of science education would explain a lot (at least to me), but I was not planning to rub it in anyone’s face. Maybe I am selfish for wanting to learn about this person? In my experience, a college education (or an equivalent experience) is like a tool, and I like to know whether people have actually gone through the motions and are not just cherry picking (like L.J. Carter). Further, people who have taken similar workloads in college as myself, seem to be atheists, and rarely (if ever) support religion. I guess I am keeping a tally, sort of a *science experiment* if I am not sounding too ironic here. Granted, a degree is just a piece of paper, and the experiences are what make the degree worthwhile (at least in terms of open-mindedness and learning etc). My brother didn’t go to college, and he makes more money than I do, for example. I am used to attacking/winning/competing but in this case, I was not trying to attack anyone. Maybe I could have phrased it better, but I hope my point was made, and if her education is indeed impeccable she could just be honest or simply decline to answer and be confident in her ability. I know that I don’t take criticism well either, even if it is not meant as critcism.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I assert that if I had enjoyed similar life and educational experiences to those that you (vicki) have had, I might also believe that there is an afterlife. It also applies that if you had the same life and educational experiences that I had, you would see that dead people are just plain dead. Kaput. Finito. Once you understand that we are a product of our environments (and heredity, to a lesser degree) then, it becomes obvious how relevant a person’s backround really is.
Grumpy and Jason are right (go figure!), in that I unwittingly switched the subject of discussion to *credentials*. I imagine the questions at hand will still be answered in turn, and I am glad they have pointed out that I might not have been playing fair and maybe threw a “spitball”. I wrote a (more candid) mouthful about this last night too but hadn’t submitted it yet…post to follow.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Ben: It is natural to want to know with whom you are having a dialogue.
Sorry again for using the word ignorant. I just think that some of you might benefit from knowing how religions evolve over time you would not be so fearful of the current wave of fundamentalism and would see it for the basically irreligious political movement that it is. And understand where it gets its energy.
Did I say I believed in an afterlife? I’m saying that the question is not important. It would certainly be extremely boring to be this limited, imperfect personality through measureless ages. The point is, I don’t have to wait for death to be free of this limited ego if I can approach life in the right way. For me it is through spiritual practice. For you, perhaps it using science to grasp a reality beyond your perceptions. God/not-God, belief/non-belief, these distinctions are diseases of the mind.
Mumon’s poem:
This instant: measureless eternity
Measureless eternity: right now
Seeing this
Is seeing through the one who sees
“Master Bankei once told someone who asked him for good dying instructions, “When it’s time to die, just die!”
“There is only one way to be free when you are dying: and that is to let go… Being free isn’t optional; it is a necessity. Because when you try to hold onto what cannot be held onto you suffer a lot. To have to die when you are not willing to die, to struggle against death in a losing battle - this is the greatest anguish of all. On the other hand, to let go when it is time to let go, to willingly leap forward into the next moment, which is always unknown, is a joy, a great release. This could describe the moment of death. But it could also be the description of any moment in which we are truly alive.”
http://www.everydayzen.org/teachings/talk_mumonkan47.asp
March 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I appreciate the peaceful sentiments, I too enjoy the beauty of immortality of mind, whatever the heck that means. Vicki, I take this position of (speaking) hostility toward religion not by choice. I would love to get lost in the ponderings of Buddha and occansionally have found myself wandering toward becoming a monk or ninja or something. However, at my last job, I was informed of the movement to add Intelligent Design to the classroom. From there, I began blogging, and came upon others who shared my disdain for pseudo science. Along the way, I have also encountered various folks (such as you?) who are not aware of the necessity to be *proactive* against religion. As of yet, you have not convinced me otherwise. That does not mean I can’t be nice like you though, it just kind of gets dwarfed by the messages of science, when time/attention is limited, which seems to be the case, as most americans preach pseudo science. I plan on taking a look at the link you provide, nonetheless.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Ben:
You write “I have also encountered various folks (such as you?) who are not aware of the necessity to be *proactive* against religion. ”
I can see why you look at the people at the people who pass for religious leaders in the US, and say “Thank God I’m an atheist!”
But there are many, many non-atheists who share your concerns about fundamentalism and don’t want religion taught as science and who are doing something about it. Even standard issue god-botherers are start to get concerned - just Google “Myth of a Christian Nation”
On the religious left, the mainline churches are under real attack from the fundamentalists, (as opposed to verbal attack from Sam Harris and the like) so they are concerned also, see http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/1/11/202318/102 .
But Harris says that if you don’t confess “There is no God,” you can’t play on his team. That’s one thing that Sam Harris and Jerry Falwell agree on: that liberal Christians are not “real” Christians. He doesn’t understand that at root, we make God in our image because god is us and we are god. Right now, God is due for another extreme makeover equivalent to the one he received in the Axial Age.
Whatever can be done to defeat fundamentalism is probably going to be done by religious people because Harris, Dawkins etc, despite their immense knowledge of how the brain works, have no idea of how to wage a spiritual battle against such formidable opponents.
Read Karen Armstrong’s “The Battle for God ” if you want perspective on fundamentalism as a political and historical phenomenon. Equip yourself for the battle. But don’t discount us Buddhists. Meditate and destroy … the causes of suffering. http://www.againstthestream.com/thebook.htm
March 9th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Here was an earlier response of mine (written last night). Feel free to psychoanalyze me (or my posts), I am learning to appreciate constructive criticism. Okay, as promised, here is what I wrote yesterday, undoctored…
Yes, SAT scores please, class. That goes for everyone here… don’t be shy. Obviously, you can lie if you want…but if you abstain, you will be given a 400 as default, fair being fair. Then please define Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in a short essay.
Mine: a decent 1300. 700 math + 600 verbal. But my verbal skill has improved since senior year, at least in terms of my capacity for hispanic profanity and it’s nuances. On the other hand, my math skill has gone the way of the windows desktop calculator.
In terms of the religious discussion above, it is eerily similar to topics discussed in sociology classrooms, if anyone is curious to learn more about things like world cultures, worship of cows (they really do in india), malthusian economics. Oh, and the reason I see you as my adversary (on a blogging basis purely) is because you seem to take the side of defending religion/fate/karma, whereas I will not rest until everyone hears about tiktaaliks, Neanderthals, quasars, red-shifts, plate motion, black smokers, ice cores, LIDAR, galapagos, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, dark matter, and some other big words. Maybe I have wrongly characterized you as someone(the average human) who would automatically choose to be “against” somebody who has already declared as being against them. Bravo for taking the high road… in case you were wondering, I practice a bit of zen-like meditation, and I do yoga-like stuff, and the occasional mind altering substance. Of course I don’t call it that, I call it Exercise, Naptime, and getting Stoned. You probably won’ t believe me, but my uncle was/is friends with the Dalai llama, or some other guy (of great stature/notoriety in Zen/Budda).
March 9th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Here’s the story of what happened to Spain when it gave up religion:
For the full article, click here.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Vicki (and others), where do you fall on a scale of 1-100 in belief in God? (With total belief being 1 and total disbelief being 100). My score is 99 on this scale. For the sake of my sanity, please try and provide an actual number, somewhere within the hyperbole, unless of course you would prefer not to divulge/respond.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:28 am
I’ll respond to the question. It depends on what one means by “God.” I don’t use that term (”God”) because it means far too many things to people. If “God” means Zeus, I’d say I rate myself at 100. If you mean “God” as the Being depicted in the Old testament, then I’m also ranked at 100. If “God” means only the apparent order in the universe that appears to be beyond my understanding, which makes me feel humble and largely ignorant, then 5.
My number rapidly gets smaller the more one tries to attribute any sentience to “God.” My number rises to 100 to the extent that one characterizes “God” as a Being that craves or requires worship. In my opinion, the desire to be worshipped is quite unbecoming of a Supreme Being. The need to be worshipped is pathological, even for humans. To the extent that one’s God needs to be worshipped (or thanked or appreciated or consulted or loved), it reveals to me that that God was created in the image and likeness of humans by humans.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I think Ben’s reverse scale confused Erich, putting total belief at the lowest scalar and no belief is up at 100. What was wrong with the 1 to 7 scale proposed in this post itself?
I personally believe in the semantic construct of God. God exists to anyone who believes in him/her/them. Belief is a powerful and contagious social force.
I don’t believe in any physical reality of the meme indicated by this semantic construct. There is no physical, measurable, detectable entity underpinning the word.
I don’t believe that any intelligence micro-manages the daily existence of the universe or mankind or myself. Science supports this belief.
I don’t believe in a meddling creator who in any way violated the simple, measurable, discoverable rules of physical nature in order to create the universe, the world, or myself. Again, well supported by the scientific process.
I don’t believe that a sentience is necessary to the initial creation of the universe and its laws. This is an article of pure faith. But if God is necessary to create the universe, doesn’t it simply follow that another God was necessary to create God? Why postulate an undetectable entity to create everything that is detectable? Occam. Or think “Turtles all the way down.”
March 10th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I think I got the question partially right, though it was counter-intuitive. I don’t believe in Zeus (thus my 100) and I do believe in impersonal order of the universe (thus my relative “high” 5).
I reverse the rating on the last paragraph. I’m now going back to change that 1 to 100. Thanks for the correction, Dan.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Thanks guys, enlightening, though I’m not holding anyone to their answers. I noted how some people kind of interpreted the “rules” differently, I guess thats how life works.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Ben writes: “For the sake of my sanity, please try and provide an actual number, somewhere within the hyperbole”
Oh dear. That is a lot of responsibility. Sorry if my verbal outpourings have driven you to the brink of madness. Dan, my ex, has a lot of experience with that (wink) Hi Dan, are you sorry yet you sent me that link to your article?
My left brain says “The statements God=true and God=false are equally nonsensical because they contain a term “God” that has no meaning in logical or scientific discourse.” The way so many here seem to need to define what they are dis-believing in speaks to that.
My right brain says that the creation, re-creation, and destruction of gods is an essential activity of the creative imagination. We create god in our own mirror image and likeness. The usefulness of the god-concept is that by re-inventing god individually or collectively, people and cultures can re-invent themselves. This is what happened in the Axial Age. Maybe the god-image we need to invent now is an empty O. Or maybe even just removing the American flag pin from Jesus’ lapel would help.
So when the Grand Inquisitor asks “Do you believe in God?” he is also referring to some product of his own imagination to which I have no direct access. But I have to pick a number because I have responsibility for your sanity now. So, the answer is…. 42!
March 10th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I don’t think I have anything more to say on this subject, really, but I have an offer and a challenge.
Here’s the offer:: If any of you want to run for school board with a pledge to oppose teaching of Intelligent Design or Creation Science, I will contribute to your campaign. Or if you know of a war chest fund for such candidates, I will make a donation.
The challenge: read Karen Armstrong’s “The Battle for God” and see if it doesn’t help you understand fundamentalism as a primarily political/historical rather than religious phenomenon.
March 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Ben: If you’d care to assign numerical values to each of the separate ways of viewing God that I presented (each of which may be a separate dimension of understanding), plus any other ways that we can come up with, then I’d be happy to apply a multi-dimensional Pythagorean formula to get a scalar answer.
But it would be as meaningless as a value of “three” in answer to “Where are you?” Three what? Miles away? Feet in the air? Blocks east plus blocks south plus stories up plus days ago plus classes behind? The RMS of those axes?
Vicki: I’m happy to have you here. After all, I did send you the link. I’d vote for giving you Author access, but Erich is our benevolent monarch.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I can see how assigning a probability scale to belief in God is meaningless if we do not first agree on what we mean by the word “God,” so I will attempt to come up with a good working definition before we proceed in answering Ben’s question. In fact, it seems that most, if not all, of our disputes in this post originated from a simple failure to agree about the definitions of the words “God” and “religion.” Vicki views religion in very broad terms, but when Dawkins refers to the word “religion,” he has a much narrower definition in mind. On page 12 of The God Delusion, he actually says, “I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man.” He also quotes Steven Weinberg:
To clarify some of these misunderstandings, Dawkins tries to distinguish between what he calls “Einsteinian religion” and “supernatural religion.” The former got its name from Albert Einstein’s habit of using the word “God” to describe the awe-inspiring nature of the universe which the mind cannot grasp. That is exactly what Erich was referring to when he pondered his position in Ben’s 1-100 scale: “If ‘God’ means only the apparent order in the universe that appears to be beyond my understanding, which makes me feel humble and largely ignorant, then 5.” The idea of “God” as a “semantic construct” that exists only in people’s minds would also fall into this category. And, to me, it seems that this is what Vicki has in mind when she hears the word, “God.” Now, to be fair, Dawkins by no means opposes people who are “religious” in that sense of the term. What he does have a problem with is the belief in God as a sentient creator of the universe that is “appropriate for us to worship,” and when he uses the word “religion,” he refers exclusively to the second category (supernatural religion).
In Chapter 2, Dawkins introduces his readers to what he calls the “God Hypothesis,” which he clearly defines as the following:
“There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”
So when he lays out his 1-7 probability spectrum, he must be referring to “God” as defined by these terms. I hope that’s specific enough at least to elicit an answer from everyone about where to place oneself on the scale. Of course, it’s possible to be even more specific, but Dawkins doesn’t want to pick on the God of just one religion, like Christianity; he wants to pick on the whole concept of a supernatural sentience that exists outside a person’s mind.
March 11th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Here’s another variation of belief/doubt to consider:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
March 11th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I don’t believe, I KNOW. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. And me. And you. Also the hell and the Devil. I refuse to collaborate with Dawkins, Harris, the Christian right or anyone else who sets themselves up as the arbiter of what “real” religion or belief is or can be. In one of the links someone put in a comment above Harris actually says “Any true Christian believes..” or words to that effect. Excuse me! Would any “true atheist” be so arrogant?
I am ready to join with anyone at any time to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who wants to non-violently oppose the diseased power structures of this world. No belief test necessary.
On a practical level, I’m still standing by with my checkbook to support anyone here who wants to run for school board.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Speaking of beliefs, I just read that there is actually one member of Congress who doesn’t actively profess a belief in a Supreme Being:
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America. Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.
Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition’s research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress.
http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html
March 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
What direction is your belief in God heading? I think this question may shed some more light on the numbers/results which came up, however cryptic they were. For example, my score of 99 out of 100 would be accompanied by an arrow pointing toward less belief (100). This would indicate that the overall direction of my belief is a decreasing function (on average). What direction would your score be pointing? I think the answers will be quite telling (at least to me), in that nobody here will declare that they have more belief in God than they used to.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
To be less cryptic, I don’t think that belief in god or the sacred is anything other than a byproduct of consciousness. The concept of the sacred co-evolved with the human brain. Religious beliefs are not randomly counter-factual but follow set patterns. Some of the literary motifs in the Bible date to the Paleolithic era and are probably co-incident with the evolution of human language. Their value is not primarily in providing “explanations” of phenomena but to make the experience of life more meaningful on a day to day basis.
It is true that religious institutions tend to harden spiritual experience into rigid mental struc