an atheists altar: what do atheists consider sacred?

[kohailiam]

This idea was sparked after watching the four horsemen series in which Sam Harris, Richard Dawkens, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett conversed about atheism.  The question essentially is this:  in a post religious world, what would the atheist do in a church?  examples include the following: secular rituals for weddings, funerals, and so forth, higher order art and important group functions.  What does everyone think about this?  Specifically, is beauty (in various forms) the object of veneration which atheists value as sacred?

[pinkocommie]

Welcome to the forum!  

Sacred is strange terminology to use because in most cases it implies religious connotations.

Main Entry: sa·cred
Pronunciation: \ˈsā-krəd\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Anglo-French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacr-, sacer sacred; akin to Latin sancire to make sacred, Hittite šaklāi- rite
Date: 14th century
1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2 a : worthy of religious veneration : holy b : entitled to reverence and respect
3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>
4 archaic : accursed
5 a : unassailable, inviolable b : highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>

If we're going with the 5th definition, then of course.  I don't know of any atheists personally who don't deeply value beauty in some form.  I think that's a human trait, not a religious trait.

As for what atheists might do for weddings, funerals, etc. in a post religious world - I imagine they would do the same thing they do now.  My father had a non religious funeral and has the atheist symbol (the atomic a) on his tombstone.  I had a secular wedding when I got married.  These things are possible and happen fairly regularly now, I don't know why or how it would be any different in a world without religion.

[JillSwift]

By definitions for sacred:

• devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
  Nothing.
• entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
  Nothing.
• pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.
  Nothing.
• reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
  This would no doubt vary greatly from person to person, and culture to culture.
• regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
  This would also vary greatly.
• secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
  This would depend on culture. I think here in the US, one might consider the first 10 amendments (the bill of rights) sacred, by this definition.
• properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.
  This definition is rather archaic. I'd expect that, for the sake of a smoothly operating society any office of organization would be sacred by this definition

Otherwise, I'm not even sure atheists would necessarily have one particular way of marking any occasion. Marriage is an offshoot of religion, perhaps in such a secular world it would be abandoned in favor of partnership contracts, child rearing agreements or just winging it under cultural/legal standards. Celebration of such bonds would likely be more "party" than "officiant and participants".

Funerals would likely be memorials by the strictest definition (meaning folks getting together and sharing memories). The funeral director becoming the closest thing to an efficient, just guiding the interment (or whatever the actual funerary form) along.

The one thing that would be marked about all of this would be the fact that these recognitions of changes in life would become about the people, their family and friends as opposed to all the squawking about imaginary things.

[pinkocommie]

The one thing that would be marked about all of this would be the fact that these recognitions of changes in life would become about the people, their family and friends as opposed to all the squawking about imaginary things.

That is a very good point.  

[Tank]

Well there are a couple of churches near here that are now curry houses.

[Whitney]

click on the fellowship of freethought link in my sig for what I think is the secular alternative to the community offered by a church.

I would say that freethinkers tend to strongly value philosophical thinking, scientific inquiry, and freedom but would not use the word sacred since that is a word meant for religious ideals.

Church is for preaching a certain viewpoint and isn't a model that can be sustainably used for freethinking individuals...we need something different.

[JillSwift]

Well there are a couple of churches near here that are now curry houses.

A clear improvement.  

*is now hungry for tikka masala*

[Quinn Mander]

I would say that freethinkers tend to strongly value philosophical thinking, scientific inquiry, and freedom but would not use the word sacred since that is a word meant for religious ideals.

I would agree with Whitney in this regard, and perhaps add that besides wanting to eschew religious associations, I am personally uncomfortable with the sense of inviolability inherent in the word.  I'm not sure WHAT I consider COMPLETELY inviolable, in all situations and under all circumstances.  The "sacred" word makes me itchy.

I also agree with JillSwift in that the people involved should be of paramount importance in any ceremony, not the ceremony itself, or imaginary beings towards which they might be directed.

[kohailiam]

Well that all seems fair enough.  I think that my choice of the word sacred was a bit of a misnomer insofar as I didn't intend for it to mean something that was inviolable but rather something which was considered as having a deeper (i want to say spiritual) meaning.  I think that there are things which an atheist could and probably should consider to be on a different plane as others.  For example, I think it is reasonable to say that particularly beautiful poetry has the ability to move individuals in a psychological direction which otherwise they would not explore generally.  It seems to me that religion has claimed something of a monopoly on these special states ( I suppose that mysticism is representative of what I'm talking about, albeit in the most extreme sense.).  So I amend my former statement: not sacred, necessarily, but something rather greater from the usual mundane stuff which we deal with.  I suppose the question that begs is, does that exist?  is there material which should be set aside as being special?

and yes, curry does seem a radical improvement over evangelism.

[Davin]

One thing you will find with a lot of atheists is the flat out rejection of certain terms whether intended as a poetic form or not. This is because when an atheist uses certain terms wen talking about something some theists will say "aha, so you think this" and no amount of explaining what we meant will satisfy a correction for them. So many words are kind of rejected by experience to keep the conversation as honest as possible without going too much into semantics. Of course not all atheists fit this bill, but I am one of them that do fit that.

Onto your point, the only thing that atheists do share in common is only linked to the meaning of the word atheist: we do not believe in any god. I think something that would bring about a better discussion is what do each of us think is very important and dismiss the atheist label.

The thing I think is most important is to never accept something as true without the scientific process. If I haven't studied something enough to know about whether I can accept it as true or not, I will not simply trust in anyone (scientists included) telling me that it's true (or not true). And I don't see any downside to this kind of process. I don't have a problem at all with speculation, but if the speculation remains unfounded, then it remains speculation.

[kohailiam]

I understand our value upon the scientific line of reasoning.  There is no question that it represents the foundation of rational thought, and furthermore that insanity in the classic sense is defined by performing the same test over and over and expecting different results.  I'm with you so far.
I guess what I want to focus in on is the following hypothesis: that there are readily discoverable truths in the world which are readily discoverable by science.  However, my sense of intuition suggests that there are truths which are inaccessible to the current scientific method as we currently perform it.  When it comes to issues of meta cognition, it is difficult to say that a person can always think perfectly rationally about a subject.  At heart to this theory is the vast and overwhelming experiental data which is compiled by an individual during their lifetimes.  For this reason, I do not think that the standard scientific method of steadily plodding along logically will work.  There is simply too much data and too little of it is understood.  For this reason, while I do not suggest a return to religion, I do think that appreciating the role of mythology and spirituality is necessary to 'deal with' the mind.
In short, I don't think that scientists will ever stop chasing ghosts in the mind of a full developed human.  This is not to discredit psychology, but rather to support the incredible complexity of the mind.


and as a slight aside, isn't the scientific method considered sacred?  (just trying to put a wrench in the gears)

[i_am_i]

and as a slight aside, isn't the scientific method considered sacred?

No.

[ZachsMind]

Laurie Anderson famously said "Language is a virus." I thought I understood what she meant when I was still 'spiritual' for lack of a better word. Now that I'm atheist, I get what she meant in a way perhaps even she did not intend.

The word "sacred" is another word in a growing list of words I suddenly find archaic and in need of a moratorium. Love for example. Why do we insist on still using a word to convey emotion towards a loved one (a person) as well as inanimate objects or styles of music or a video about cats? The word has lost its meaning and purpose and is horrendously incapable of confidently communicating the same thought from the speaker to the receiver. When I say "I love her" I might mean I love what happens to my neurons when I'm with her. When she hears me tell her I love her, she might take that to mean I want to get married, make babies, and grow old together, when I wasn't contemplating the consequences of this evening's experience at all. The word love can easily be misunderstood.

The word "sacred" has similar problems. It means different things to different people depending on geography, cultural background, immediate contextual events (wedding, bah mitzvah, funeral), social protocols, personal beliefs, opinions about symbology, etc. As was described before I got here, multiple definitions in the dictionary connect "sacred" to religious connotations, so if one is atheist, nothing is sacred. One may choose to revere something, but not all atheists have to agree upon what is to be revered.

[Asmodean]

I value my friends above all else.

[Davin]

and as a slight aside, isn't the scientific method considered sacred?

No.

Exactly. Things that are sacred are unquestionable. The scientific method is not only questionable but questioning is required.