The Religion/Faith of Atheism

[Typist]

Dagda, interesting posts, well put, thanks.  

Finding meaning in your life is not a religion, but it comes from the same evolutionary instinct which creates religion-if you think your life has meaning then you are one step away from being religious! Of course most people deny that life is meaningless, but most people fear the abyss.

This is interesting.  Is this another way of saying the human mind has a profound need to "know"?   That seems a reasonable proposition.

That seems to be the motivator driving both atheism and theism, a commonality that is usually denied in the passionate quest for philosophical victory.   The need to know, to have an explanation, a story, to explain whatever question arises.    A very human quality, eh?

Any meaning people take out of their lives is complete bullshit, and yet almost every human who has ever existed has proscribed to this myth (that includes atheists).

How do you _KNOW_ that lives have no meaning, to a degree of certainty that allows you to label any other view "complete bullshit"?

Is this declaration of "knowing" essentially the same as theism and atheism?    That is, a very human need to have "the answer" even in the face of a near complete lack of data?  Wouldn't we have to understand reality to an exhaustive degree to really be able to say with finality that life has no meaning?

Would it be more accurate and precise to say this?  

"It is my inclination, my belief, based on faith, that life has no meaning."

[Typist]

If it were a riddle then it would be fun...I already pointed out how I know it's not in the room.

Yes, I understand, you said...

I know an invisible pink unicorn is not in the room with me right now because if it were it would produce sounds, leave behind tracks, and I would not be able to walk through the space it occupies.

What I'm trying to get at is that belief, especially certainty, can easily become a box, a prison of a sort.    Truth seeking scientists would not welcome the confinement of such a prison.

Once we declare that something exists or doesn't exist, especially if we are somewhat adamant in our declaration, we are to a significant extent no longer objective observers.  We have a horse in the race, a stake in the game, something to lose if we turn out to be wrong.   If our business interests are involved, (say we publish books on the topic for a living and are known as an authority) then the prison is even stronger.  

If I write a book declaring that invisible pink unicorns are absurd, I'm quite unlikely to welcome theories and evidence that maybe they do indeed exist.   If I find myself in that position, I'm no longer a scientist seeking the truth, and have begun to enter that zone where, as example, atheism might be called a religion.

[Dagda]

The point you continue to ignore is that religion distinguishes itself from social bonding or philosophical pondering because religion specifically introduces the idea of god or gods and a means by which all people can bond (we're all God's children) or to explain philosophical questions (We're doing God's work).  The deity or deities is what makes religion religion and not something else.

Ah, but there are religions (Taoism etc) which do not have a god/s in their mythology. Yes religions serve the supernatural, but we have still to agree as to what the supernatural is-as far as I am aware no-one has provided their definition of supernatural yet. Religions do not require god/s.

[Dagda]

How do you _KNOW_ that lives have no meaning, to a degree of certainty that allows you to label any other view "complete bullshit"?

Is this declaration of "knowing" essentially the same as theism and atheism?    That is, a very human need to have "the answer" even in the face of a near complete lack of data?  Wouldn't we have to understand reality to an exhaustive degree to really be able to say with finality that life has no meaning?

Would it be more accurate and precise to say this?  

"It is my inclination, my belief, based on faith, that life has no meaning."

I do not know that life has no meaning (I believe it does) but all the availed evidence points toward life being devoid of meaning. Any action I care to take will lead to dust. No effect is lasting and as such in the grand scheme of things you could say that I may as well have not committed the action at all as no matter how I performed the action, the result is the same: dust. This seems to be a truth as far as temporal actions are concerned, therefore I conclude that life has no meaning as far as we can fathom. The average human being seems to be unable to psychologically cope with this knowledge (even Nietzsche went insane), and so we create psychological barriers so that we can continue to operate in day-to-day life. Religion or pseudo-religion is the preferred method of humanity to attempt to block the view of the abyss.

[pinkocommie]

The point you continue to ignore is that religion distinguishes itself from social bonding or philosophical pondering because religion specifically introduces the idea of god or gods and a means by which all people can bond (we're all God's children) or to explain philosophical questions (We're doing God's work).  The deity or deities is what makes religion religion and not something else.

Ah, but there are religions (Taoism etc) which do not have a god/s in their mythology. Yes religions serve the supernatural, but we have still to agree as to what the supernatural is-as far as I am aware no-one has provided their definition of supernatural yet. Religions do not require god/s.

But when you reference Taoism, you're trying to reference only the philosophy while ignoring the fact that traditional Taoism is polytheistic.  Even Buddhists revere and venerate the Buddha to the point where in some holy texts he is referred to as an omnipresent foundation of everything that exists.

So, again, religion is distinguished as religion because of the existence of god/gods.

[Typist]

Dagda, I'm enjoying your posts, thanks.   Intelligent and articulate, good reading.

I do not know that life has no meaning (I believe it does) but all the availed evidence points toward life being devoid of meaning. Any action I care to take will lead to dust.

Yes, our bodies all die in the end, no matter what we do, that's a well established point of fact.  

However, it seems a leap of faith to jump from this known fact, to an evaluation of something nobody has any data on, what if anything happens after the body turns to dust.   To be clear, I'm not claiming to know, rather, claiming none of us know.

I suggest converting "life has no meaning" to "we don't know if life has meaning or not".   Stick with the facts.

The average human being seems to be unable to psychologically cope with this knowledge (even Nietzsche went insane), and so we create psychological barriers so that we can continue to operate in day-to-day life.

Yes, you're surely on to something here.   As human beings, it's our nature to need to know, to have explanations for everything.  

Some of us invent meanings as a shield, some of us declare there is no meaning.   Both parties seem to be doing the same, creating a story based on very little data, so that we can have some sort of explanation to fill the void.  

I sense you are trying to be rigorously honest and brave by squarely facing what seems a hard truth, life has no meaning.   I suggest there is an even more challenging truth for us as human beings.

We simply don't know.  It may even be true that we can't know.

It might be true that we have the ability to ask all kinds of questions that we'll never be able to answer.   A sense of humor is required!  

Religion or pseudo-religion is the preferred method of humanity to attempt to block the view of the abyss.

Yes, indeed.  Religion is the longest running show, humanity's biggest project, and thus is interesting whatever the merits of it's various claims.

Thanks for the thought provoking comments.

[elliebean]

a well established point of fact

OMG, Typist knows something!

[Dagda]

Ah, but there are religions (Taoism etc) which do not have a god/s in their mythology. Yes religions serve the supernatural, but we have still to agree as to what the supernatural is-as far as I am aware no-one has provided their definition of supernatural yet. Religions do not require god/s.

But when you reference Taoism, you're trying to reference only the philosophy while ignoring the fact that traditional Taoism is polytheistic.  Even Buddhists revere and venerate the Buddha to the point where in some holy texts he is referred to as an omnipresent foundation of everything that exists.

So, again, religion is distinguished as religion because of the existence of god/gods.[/quote]

Well I suppose that under that definition Bolshevism et al is not a religion (however earlier in the thread people seemed to agree that religion does not need a god and that is where my argument came from). Perhaps it would be better to describe it as a pseudo-religion? Same psychological reflex after all.

Dagda, I'm enjoying your posts, thanks. Intelligent and articulate, good reading.

Thank you very much. In the same manner your certainty about uncertainty is quite refreshing.

However, it seems a leap of faith to jump from this known fact, to an evaluation of something nobody has any data on, what if anything happens after the body turns to dust. To be clear, I'm not claiming to know, rather, claiming none of us know.

I suggest converting "life has no meaning" to "we don't know if life has meaning or not". Stick with the facts.

I suppose you have me there. Of course as I said (I think) I don’t proscribe to this philosophy, but I am a great admirer of Nietzsche. However I would say that if we assumed that the materialist world-view is correct (there is nothing but the material world) then there is no meaning to life. Then again current scientific breakthroughs in the field of Noetics and other areas seem to be suggesting that this may not be the case-of course it is early days yet and the assumptions of the materialists may yet triumph. Maybe triumph wasn’t the right word, but you get the point.

At somewhat of a tangent it is interesting (at least I find it interesting) that the great critic of Christianity Nietzsche actually convinced me that I should believe in God. I surmised that life was rather meaningless without the spiritual sphere, and so I found myself praying. I stress that this is MY thought process, and you might disagree with me, but that is how my subjective reality works.

[Typist]

However I would say that if we assumed that the materialist world-view is correct (there is nothing but the material world) then there is no meaning to life.

You know, I blindly assumed I knew what "meaning to life" meant until entering this thread.  Now I'm scratching my head a bit, which is good, thanks.   Meaning to life, what does that mean exactly?  Not sure I know...  

I spent a glorious day in the woods today, and had a chance to ponder your meaning of life reflections.   Here's what popped up.

Maybe a meaning of life could be that there is a 100% absolute no kidding no excuses never fail, not even once in a million years, guarantee that sooner or later we all get that which we've been reaching for in one way or another our whole life.  

Dust.  Nothing.  Death.  End of separation.  Reunion?

Love is a big topic for us.  What is love?  A form of death, a surrender of ourselves to someone else.

Sex is an even bigger topic!  :-)

I surmised that life was rather meaningless without the spiritual sphere, and so I found myself praying.

Ok, here's my tangent.  I surmise that divisions between material and spiritual are man made concepts, that may be useful for discussion, but don't accurately reflect reality.   To me, if there is a God, it's just a part of the natural world we don't understand yet.

I stress that this is MY thought process, and you might disagree with me, but that is how my subjective reality works.

These kinds of discussions require some care, eh?   Everybody is entitled to have their personal inclinations, which are really nobody else's businesses.  Sometimes these personal inclinations become global proclamations, at which point they are open to public analysis and challenge.  

Example:   "I see no meaning to my life" is different than "there is no meaning to life".   One statement should be respected, the other is fair game.   An ongoing challenge for all us to keep the two separate.  Please forgive this typist when I mess it up.

[Typist]

OMG, Typist knows something! :-)

[i_am_i]

OMG, Typist knows something! :-)

What the hell are you talking about?

[pinkocommie]

Well I suppose that under that definition Bolshevism et al is not a religion (however earlier in the thread people seemed to agree that religion does not need a god and that is where my argument came from). Perhaps it would be better to describe it as a pseudo-religion? Same psychological reflex after all.

Religion is philosophy with a god.  You can personally prefer the term 'pseudo-religion' to philosophy, but that doesn't mean when you say 'pseudo-religion' you're not just talking about philosophy with a different name.  I accept that atheism may be considered a philosophy, but it can not be considered a religion just the same as I accept that communism, bolshevism, etc can be considered philosophies but, because there are no gods involved, they cannot be considered religions.

[i_am_i]

Religion is philosophy with a god.

Rubbish. Religion is a doctrine, a systematized set of universal principles that are not to be questioned or debated.

[pinkocommie]

Religion is philosophy with a god.

Rubbish. Religion is a doctrine, a systematized set of universal principles that are not to be questioned or debated.

Religious doctrines are the teachings/lessons/rules of a religion, the religion is the god-based philosophy which follows the teachings.  Catholicism isn't a doctrine, but it is bound by the doctrines of the religion.  Saying religion is doctrine is like saying a forest is trees.  It's a gross over-simplification.

[Whitney]

Religion is philosophy with a god.

Rubbish. Religion is a doctrine, a systematized set of universal principles that are not to be questioned or debated.

Both of you are wrong.

Pinko - Religion is a philosophy with a god, afterlife, or some other supernatural belief.

I_am_I - Unitarian Universalism is a religion which encourages their members to explore various paths to god and encourages healthy debate (recently they apparently have been trying to push atheists out of their flock though).  Also, your definition would make rules some parents give their children a religion in themselves.....