Hi All
I've come to believe that neither science and the essence of religion nor the essence of religion and atheism are mutually exclusive. In fact they are complimentary.
I know this seems odd so I'd like to post a quote from Simone Weil to illustrate what I believe to be the unification of atheism and the essence of religion. I'd like to learn if you are open to this possibility or just find it ridiculous.
Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417
Why do I smell joss-sticks, hear chanting and see sandals and robes? ::)
Nick, welcome to HAF.
Please read the rules about the 50 post policy. If a discussion about your OP starts I will be moving it to the religion section.
Hi Nick
Welcome to HAF. Do tell us a little about yourself.
Regards
Chris
Quote from: Whitney on June 16, 2011, 07:03:56 PM
Nick, welcome to HAF.
Please read the rules about the 50 post policy. If a discussion about your OP starts I will be moving it to the religion section.
Hi Whitney
I wanted to see what people are like here when presented with the unusual. Simone is about as unusual as you'll learn of. Who else could have been a brilliant Marxist admired by Trotsky and become an intellectual influence on Pope Paul V1. If blanket denial is too great, there is no use continuing.
Chris, I'm just a regular guy with artistic and spiritual influences but with the mind of a chess player. I've become more aware that there is a need for the exchange of depth of ideas. Their absence is one of the reasons that people are driven towards materialism to fill the void in the heart the absence has caused. So I look around to see where it is possible.
Quote from: Nick_A on June 16, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
Quote from: Whitney on June 16, 2011, 07:03:56 PM
Nick, welcome to HAF.
Please read the rules about the 50 post policy. If a discussion about your OP starts I will be moving it to the religion section.
Hi Whitney
I wanted to see what people are like here when presented with the unusual. Simone is about as unusual as you'll learn of. Who else could have been a brilliant Marxist admired by Trotsky and become an intellectual influence on Pope Paul V1. If blanket denial is too great, there is no use continuing.
Chris, I'm just a regular guy with artistic and spiritual influences but with the mind of a chess player. I've become more aware that there is a need for the exchange of depth of ideas. Their absence is one of the reasons that people are driven towards materialism to fill the void in the heart the absence has caused. So I look around to see where it is possible.
Nick
I look forward to reading your thoughts. Thing is we have a 50 post 'get to know you rule' here. It appears to do what its supposed to. So if you fancy sticking around get to your 50 and then we'll get down to the serious stuff. :)
Hello Nick_A and welcome,
Sounds a bit convoluted to me but i'm willing to give it some thought.
Quote from: leedan on June 17, 2011, 04:55:02 AM
Hello Nick_A and welcome,
Sounds a bit convoluted to me but i'm willing to give it some thought.
I know it seems odd at first glance. But from the point of view of a person who believes that humanity lives in imagination described by Plato in his famous cave analogy, then it makes perfect sense. Both atheism and secularized religion are under the influence of imagination normal for cave life. Neither have opened their supernatural part necessary to experience and appreciate man's relationship to higher consciousness.
Of course the atheist would say "prove it" and the believer believing in a personal God will think it blasphemy. But Suppose Simone is right? How does a person seeking the truth of the human condition come to reconciile this since both sides will consider him nuts?
i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism
Quote from: non prophet on June 17, 2011, 06:53:56 PM
i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism
Difference is what makes the world go around! :)
Quote from: non prophet on June 17, 2011, 06:53:56 PM
i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism
I would expect to be shot down. Whenever people hold strong opinions they will shoot down what threatens them. That is why I admire those like Simone Weil. She was considered the greatest pain in the ass in the University where she studied. She probably was. But instead of being open to these strange people that have an overwhelming need for truth, people condemn them for not fitting in since they threaten our established norms.
The Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote of Simone:
We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her againThe Police Commissioner of Le Puy to the Prefect in a 1932 report to the Prefect wrote of Simone:
In the interest of public security it would be advisable that this person be distanced from Le Puy, where she has never ceased to preach revolt.Yet Malcolm Muggeridge described Simone as:
In my opinion, the most luminous intelligence of the twentieth centuryExistentialist philosopher Albert Camus in a letter to Weil's mother in 1951 wrote:
Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing.
For my part, I would be satisfied if one could say that in my place, with the humble means at my disposal, I served to make known and disseminate her work whose full impact we have yet to measure.I ask myself who I have the greatest respect for; those that condemn those like Simone or those that realize these are special people we can learn from if we are open to learning beyond being conditioned.
Well for me, I'll take Simone over the deiers in whatever form regardless of how intense their righteous indignation becomes.
QuoteWhy do I smell joss-sticks, hear chanting and see sandals and robes?
Looking at that again, it was a cheap shot as well as unwelcoming. I apologise.
Quote from: OldGit on June 16, 2011, 07:02:32 PM
Why do I smell joss-sticks, hear chanting and see sandals and robes? ::)
MY line! Now where was that rant emoticon?!
Quote from: Asmodean on June 18, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
MY line! Now where was that rant emoticon?!
SMF 2.0 was officially released this past week...after I get it installed I will look for where I load the smilies and restore our old ones.
Quote from: Whitney on June 18, 2011, 04:13:18 PM
SMF 2.0 was officially released this past week...after I get it installed I will look for where I load the smilies and restore our old ones.
I've seen a spaghetti monster smilie on a neighbouring forum and I'm feeling covetous.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FFSMlaugh.gif&hash=883c2cb00626f643a7775c6ad6264aae7d1f4643)
Quote from: OldGit on June 18, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
QuoteWhy do I smell joss-sticks, hear chanting and see sandals and robes?
Looking at that again, it was a cheap shot as well as unwelcoming. I apologise.
No harm no foul. As long as it was sincere, it is always welcome. The unification of atheism and the essence of religion as complimentary in the mutual search for truth will bring many growls from all sides before it comes to be.
Quote from: Nick_A on June 17, 2011, 08:34:13 PM
Quote from: non prophet on June 17, 2011, 06:53:56 PM
i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism
I would expect to be shot down. Whenever people hold strong opinions they will shoot down what threatens them. That is why I admire those like Simone Weil. She was considered the greatest pain in the ass in the University where she studied. She probably was. But instead of being open to these strange people that have an overwhelming need for truth, people condemn them for not fitting in since they threaten our established norms.
The Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote of Simone:
We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again
The Police Commissioner of Le Puy to the Prefect in a 1932 report to the Prefect wrote of Simone:
In the interest of public security it would be advisable that this person be distanced from Le Puy, where she has never ceased to preach revolt.
Looks like an interesting person ;D
Welcome, btw!
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 18, 2011, 07:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nick_A on June 17, 2011, 08:34:13 PM
Quote from: non prophet on June 17, 2011, 06:53:56 PM
i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism
I would expect to be shot down. Whenever people hold strong opinions they will shoot down what threatens them. That is why I admire those like Simone Weil. She was considered the greatest pain in the ass in the University where she studied. She probably was. But instead of being open to these strange people that have an overwhelming need for truth, people condemn them for not fitting in since they threaten our established norms.
The Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote of Simone:
We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again
The Police Commissioner of Le Puy to the Prefect in a 1932 report to the Prefect wrote of Simone:
In the interest of public security it would be advisable that this person be distanced from Le Puy, where she has never ceased to preach revolt.
Looks like an interesting person ;D
Welcome, btw!
Albert Camus said that Simone Weil had a "lucid madness for truth." I am more inclined to go with the flow. It makes me wonder which of us is more objectively normal. My gut feeling is that she is which is a scary thought.
Quote from: non prophet on June 17, 2011, 06:53:56 PM
i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism
So true. I have already stuck my foot in my mouth and I was flamed or criticized to the point of shame for it. This is a great place.
Welcome Nick!
Quote from: Nick_A on June 16, 2011, 06:45:09 PM
Hi All
I've come to believe that neither science and the essence of religion nor the essence of religion and atheism are mutually exclusive. In fact they are complimentary.
I know this seems odd so I'd like to post a quote from Simone Weil to illustrate what I believe to be the unification of atheism and the essence of religion. I'd like to learn if you are open to this possibility or just find it ridiculous.
Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417
Hello and welcome to HAF,
Nick_A.
Since "the essence of religion" remains undefined here, I will only render a provisional "buncombe." As for the Weil quote, it strikes me as a choice sample of high-falutin' double talk. I would get more specific, but the rules of the forum mean that an actual conversation on the ideas you present here will have to wait until you've served your time making small talk in the "Getting To Know You"
ghetto section.
I hope you enjoy your time reading and posting here. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)
Hey Nick,
I don't find your view to be that odd at all, in fact I have heard it a few times.
As the quote is rather vague and I'm more interested in how you combine the two strains of thought together.
How would you define the complimentary elements of the two in your own beliefs?
What elements of religion do you keep and which do you throw away, or what do you define as the "essence of religion"?
What do you consider to be "true faith"?
Quote from: Crow on June 23, 2011, 02:07:00 AM
Hey Nick,
I don't find your view to be that odd at all, in fact I have heard it a few times.
As the quote is rather vague and I'm more interested in how you combine the two strains of thought together.
How would you define the complimentary elements of the two in your own beliefs?
What elements of religion do you keep and which do you throw away, or what do you define as the "essence of religion"?
What do you consider to be "true faith"?
Hi Crow
I see you are a negative atheist so appreciate ideas rather than just the joys of denial
My guess is that it is this attitude that made those like Simone appreciate atheism.
Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17
****************
The essence of religion initiated with a conscious source in several forms each of which gradually devolved into society and became secularized. This means for example that even though Christianity and Buddhism appear different, it is only because they have been secularized. But their essence is the same that began for Man at a transcendent level of reality.
The person awakening to the fact that we do live as Plato described as if in a cave experiences the essence of religion awakening the person to the human condition.
The negative atheist or the person interested in truth rather than denial for the sake of self importance senses the secularization of religion and points out the hypocrisy secularized religion has become.
So someone like Simone comes to know that the atheist is right to object to obvious absurdities. Yet at the same time, if they have not become closed minded, they can become to experience the human condition in the same way the person having felt the truth of the human condition by experiencing "grace."
The secularization of either religion or atheism is not the pursuit of truth but rather of "prestige." Yet atheists like Simone began to understand it and transcended the limitations of "prestige."
True faith is not a faith IN something but rather a developed human attribute that exists in us at an infantile level. The Disciples believed in Jesus and had faith IN him. But they lacked the faith OF Christ. Faith IN Christ is of little value while seeking to acquire the faith OF Christ is of enormous value. Faith as a human attribute is what allows a person to remain conscious of the truth of higher influences while experiencing the world. A conscious person connects above and below. We cannot do this. We quickly become attached to what is happening and lose the conscious perspective that connects above and below in the human organism.
The essence of religion is about acquiring consciousness. The atheist only appreciates reactive consciousness. Opening to the depth of self awareness reveals the human condition which I believe the negative atheist could open to since their denial is not running on automatic pilot.
Very interesting. Would you say that this "true faith" requires a belief in an intelligent conscious god?
Hey nick, welcome you've got some interesting insight and point of view already I'm interested to hear more. I am quickly coming to agree with David Sloan Wilsons ideas regarding meaning systems. In his theory meaning systems of all kind evolved including religion. From an evolutionary standpoint there does not have to be truth in a meaning system it just has to inspire behaviors favorable for the continued replication of that meaning system. I think that atheism could be considered a meaning system. I've left a link to the lecture it's amazing how he is able to show that both atheists and theists can regard their meaning system with equal levels of elation or revulsion. hit your 50 and we can get into it more.
http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1299362400000
Quote from: Twentythree on June 23, 2011, 08:55:08 PM
http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1299362400000
Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system, it is quite clear how secularism managed to grow like it has in western society looking at its history; just like its possible to observe the evolution of religion with the evolution of humanity.
What I found most interesting about the video (even though it was very quick) was the correlation between quality of life and religious dominance, if this research is correct then the more secular society is the better quality of life is, it also seems to be the case looking at Monocle magazines survey on "Top 20 Liveable Cities" (issue 05, Volume 01) it used a variety of scientific statistics relating to quality of life, those being: state education, medical care, crime, hours of sunshine, average temperature, social tolerance, entertainment, public transport, international flight accessibility, local media, international media, green space, access to nature, environmental initiatives, business potential. The results all erred towards majority secularist societies especially within the top 10.
Quote from: Crow on June 24, 2011, 02:09:58 AM
Quote from: Twentythree on June 23, 2011, 08:55:08 PM
http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1299362400000
Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system, it is quite clear how secularism managed to grow like it has in western society looking at its history; just like its possible to observe the evolution of religion with the evolution of humanity.
What I found most interesting about the video (even though it was very quick) was the correlation between quality of life and religious dominance, if this research is correct then the more secular society is the better quality of life is, it also seems to be the case looking at Monocle magazines survey on "Top 20 Liveable Cities" (issue 05, Volume 01) it used a variety of scientific statistics relating to quality of life, those being: state education, medical care, crime, hours of sunshine, average temperature, social tolerance, entertainment, public transport, international flight accessibility, local media, international media, green space, access to nature, environmental initiatives, business potential. The results all erred towards majority secularist societies especially within the top 10.
And we have the Pope on the other hand...
Quote from: Crow on June 24, 2011, 02:09:58 AM
Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system
I disagree...atheism itself has no set of values attached to it. What is a meaning system is the various groups who all just happen to contain atheists things like humanism, freethought, brights etc. Even this forum provides a framework to have a "happy atheist" meaning system if one were to take the mission statement to heart. I also don't think theist is a meaning system by itself.
Quote from: Whitney on June 24, 2011, 03:58:49 AM
Quote from: Crow on June 24, 2011, 02:09:58 AM
Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system
I disagree...atheism itself has no set of values attached to it. What is a meaning system is the various groups who all just happen to contain atheists things like humanism, freethought, brights etc. Even this forum provides a framework to have a "happy atheist" meaning system if one were to take the mission statement to heart. I also don't think theist is a meaning system by itself.
I think there are atheistic meaning systems (meaning systems in which a belief in gods is not a part) but there isn't an atheist meaning system (one revolving around a lack of beleif in god or gods).
Pure atheism as a meaning system is rather meaningless.
meaning based purely on atheism:
What is the meaning of life? "I don't believe in god"
Is morality objective? "I don't believe in god"
Why do you enjoy living? "I don't believe in god"
Do you find life personally meaningful? "I don't believe in god"
^If that's a meaning system then some people's standards of "meaning" are a bit low. :P
If you apply traditional buddhism, for instance, you'd actually get real answers to the above yet still be talking to someone who is an atheist.
Quote from: Whitney on June 24, 2011, 01:32:54 PM
meaning based purely on atheism:
What is the meaning of life? "I don't believe in god"
Is morality objective? "I don't believe in god"
Why do you enjoy living? "I don't believe in god"
Do you find life personally meaningful? "I don't believe in god"
^If that's a meaning system then some people's standards of "meaning" are a bit low. :P
If you apply traditional buddhism, for instance, you'd actually get real answers to the above yet still be talking to someone who is an atheist.
Sorry I should of clarified my stance of atheism being a meaning system, atheism in my view isn't a meaning system from an existential perspective as each atheist has there own views on philosophy, logic, and life; so its unlike a meaning system that would be associated with religion. I do consider it a meaning system from a constructivist perspective as atheism is based in reality not in the supernatural. Atheists view the world from a personal perspective that is removed from deities, gods, afterlife and all other mumbo jumbo; therefore they make sense of the world giving them meaning from a foundation that is born out of reality.
i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things. Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief. I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.
I absolutely agree. I think that theism or atheism give you a fundamental perspective on reality. With this perspective then, each individual is able to attach all sorts of meaning to everything they experience or do. It seems to me like there could be levels to meaning systems just like the levels in biological systems. So theism/atheism would me macro meaning systems where as how you believe you household should be run would be a micro meaning system with all sorts of levels in between. It's just an idea.
Quote from: Whitney on June 24, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things. Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief. I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.
Yeah your right, my bad I had totally forgot about ancient astronaut theorists and the like. If you applied what I originally said about atheism and meaning systems to these the theory falls flat on its face.
Quote from: Whitney on June 24, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things. Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief. I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.
When you define something, if you were to regress that definition wouldn't it end up ultimately resting on your view of reality, or how you perceive reality? Just a totally generic example being:
Why is water wet?
Because of its molecular properties.
What are molecules?
Tiny structures of atoms.
What are atoms?
Particles that make up matter?
And on and on until you get to how did matter come into existence?
An atheist would say something different than a theist. In either case the meaning attributed to all of these preceding questions is based on your fundamental view of reality. It appears to me that this type of regression can be made for everything that we attribute meaning to. So based on this example of regression how does atheism differ from theism as a root cause for the meaning of everything? Either god made reality or he didn't right?
Quote from: Twentythree on June 24, 2011, 06:38:15 PM
Quote from: Whitney on June 24, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things. Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief. I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.
When you define something, if you were to regress that definition wouldn't it end up ultimately resting on your view of reality, or how you perceive reality? Just a totally generic example being:
Why is water wet?
Because of its molecular properties.
What are molecules?
Tiny structures of atoms.
What are atoms?
Particles that make up matter?
And on and on until you get to how did matter come into existence?
An atheist would say something different than a theist. In either case the meaning attributed to all of these preceding questions is based on your fundamental view of reality. It appears to me that this type of regression can be made for everything that we attribute meaning to. So based on this example of regression how does atheism differ from theism as a root cause for the meaning of everything? Either god made reality or he didn't right?
what does any of that have to do with a "meaning system"? There is a difference between a system through which meaning is derrived and understanding the world around us.
Dr. Wilson does a better job of explaining how atheism could be considered a meaning system or in this case a "Stealth Religion". Agree with it or not it's still a fantastic read and a disappointingly short one at that.
"These and other belief systems are not classified as religions because they don't invoke supernatural agents, but they are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism. The presence or absence of supernatural agents--a particular departure from factual realism--is just a detail. It is humbling to contemplate that the concerns typically voiced about religion need to be extended to virtually all forms of human thought. If anything, non-religious belief systems are a greater cause for concern because they do a better job of masquerading as factual reality. Call them stealth religions."
Enjoy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_b_76901.html
Quote from: Twentythree on June 24, 2011, 08:46:30 PM
Dr. Wilson does a better job of explaining how atheism could be considered a meaning system or in this case a "Stealth Religion". Agree with it or not it's still a fantastic read and a disappointingly short one at that.
"These and other belief systems are not classified as religions because they don't invoke supernatural agents, but they are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism. The presence or absence of supernatural agents--a particular departure from factual realism--is just a detail. It is humbling to contemplate that the concerns typically voiced about religion need to be extended to virtually all forms of human thought. If anything, non-religious belief systems are a greater cause for concern because they do a better job of masquerading as factual reality. Call them stealth religions."
Enjoy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_b_76901.html
That article has absolutely nothing to do with atheism being a belief system..it is about how "new atheism" is a belief system...it is false to assume that everyone who is an atheist is a new atheist.
I agree that belief systems "are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism." The issue is that this is not a true dichotomy, I don't think it's necessary to have a belief system or meaning system because I've been getting around just fine without them. It's ridiculous to posite that the lack of belief in something is a belief system. That's like saying the lack of blue paint on my car makes my car a blue car.
That is not the essence of the argument. Truth content and "belief" aren't crucial parts to a meaning system. Meaning systems are measured from an evolutionary perspective by what behaviors the induce. Your lack of belief affects your behavior, gives the things you do meaning and influences you interpretation of new information. Therefore, it can be qualified as a meaning system. For example, does your lack of belief play a role in whether or not you decide to attend church service, political rallies, or certain concerts? Does you lack of belief influence the types of friends you have or the types of literature you purchase or the types of information you seek out on the internet? does your If you can answer yes to even one of those questions then your lack of belief in a god has influenced your behavior or shaped the "meaning" of your experience. You can label it whatever you want free thinker, atheist, new atheist whatever. But if your view of reality influences you behavior then i has to be considered in this discussion of meaning systems.
"It's ridiculous to posite that the lack of belief in something is a belief system. That's like saying the lack of blue paint on my car makes my car a blue car."
you are getting belief and meaning confused here. Lack of belief is lack of belief but it is in that lack of belief that you derive meaning for the things you do. Even posting here is influenced by that and therefore gives it meaning. We are not talking about belief systems but meaning systems.
Perhaps another question will help illustrate what I'm getting at there. You say that you do not have a belief system. Do you believe that you are correct?
Whitney,
Your argument regarding the distinction between atheism and new atheism as it pertains to meaning systems is not fully developed in my opinion. That is like saying that Christianity is not a meaning system but Catholicism is. Or that Islam is not a meaning system but Suni is. Or that democracy inst but liberalism is.
It seems to me that new atheism is just an organized potentially fundamentalist group of atheists. Doesn't it seem at least a little interesting at least that atheism developed groups of fundamentalists just like other world religions? Just like other meaning systems?
Quote from: Whitney on June 24, 2011, 01:32:54 PM
meaning based purely on atheism:
What is the meaning of life? "I don't believe in god"
Is morality objective? "I don't believe in god"
Why do you enjoy living? "I don't believe in god"
Do you find life personally meaningful? "I don't believe in god"
^If that's a meaning system then some people's standards of "meaning" are a bit low. :P
If you apply traditional buddhism, for instance, you'd actually get real answers to the above yet still be talking to someone who is an atheist.
LoL couldn't have put it better myself.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 24, 2011, 04:07:26 PM
It seems to me like there could be levels to meaning systems just like the levels in biological systems. So theism/atheism would me macro meaning systems where as how you believe you household should be run would be a micro meaning system with all sorts of levels in between. It's just an idea.
What exactly do you mean by this? I've watched some of Sloan's videos, and see his multilevel selection theory being just a descriptor for how meaning systems evolved, not about the levels (could you elaborate?) of a meaning system.
I know it, you've watched and posted and engaged in some interesting discussions about Meaning Systems on other forums. The idea of multi level meaning systems didn't come directly from Wilson. It was just an idea I had. In biology there are tiers of complexity going all the way from micro biology to macro biology, there is also micro evolution and macro evolution, proximate and ultimate causation and the like so my idea was just that perhaps like other biological systems there are tiers or levels to meaning systems. Theism or atheism being macro meaning systems whereas Christianity or Humanism could be one level up and so on until you reach micro meaning systems which would be things like family values or food preference. Something like that, I also understand that these systems could not develop independently but would have to be interlinked or intertwined with other influences your psychology and of course your biology and physiology. Or perhaps Atheism would be an ultimate causation of your personal meaning system, whereas family values would be proximate. Just and example you know.
Disclaimer:
This entire post is just me thinking out loud having my own ideas about something that I learned from someone else so I would hope that I am not berated about giving specific examples, or citing experts. It's just an idea ok. If you have input or criticism I'm totally cool with that but again, most of everything above came form my imagination, and I am clearly not an expert.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 24, 2011, 10:14:52 PM
Your argument regarding the distinction between atheism and new atheism as it pertains to meaning systems is not fully developed in my opinion.
That's probably because, for whatever reason, you think the word atheist has more to it than simply "no belief in god"
QuoteThat is like saying that Christianity is not a meaning system but Catholicism is.
um...no
It's like saying that bald is not a hair color but brown is.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 25, 2011, 12:36:58 AM
I know it, you've watched and posted and engaged in some interesting discussions about Meaning Systems on other forums. The idea of multi level meaning systems didn't come directly from Wilson. It was just an idea I had. In biology there are tiers of complexity going all the way from micro biology to macro biology, there is also micro evolution and macro evolution, proximate and ultimate causation and the like so my idea was just that perhaps like other biological systems there are tiers or levels to meaning systems. Theism or atheism being macro meaning systems whereas Christianity or Humanism could be one level up and so on until you reach micro meaning systems which would be things like family values or food preference. Something like that, I also understand that these systems could not develop independently but would have to be interlinked or intertwined with other influences your psychology and of course your biology and physiology. Or perhaps Atheism would be an ultimate causation of your personal meaning system, whereas family values would be proximate. Just and example you know.
Disclaimer:
This entire post is just me thinking out loud having my own ideas about something that I learned from someone else so I would hope that I am not berated about giving specific examples, or citing experts. It's just an idea ok. If you have input or criticism I'm totally cool with that but again, most of everything above came form my imagination, and I am clearly not an expert.
Ah okay. I'm reminded of interpretational paradigms, such as theism or atheism.
How could one being an atheist affect one's food choice? :P The most obvious thing to me is saying 'no thanks' to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 24, 2011, 10:14:52 PM
That is not the essence of the argument. Truth content and "belief" aren't crucial parts to a meaning system. Meaning systems are measured from an evolutionary perspective by what behaviors the induce. Your lack of belief affects your behavior, gives the things you do meaning and influences you interpretation of new information. Therefore, it can be qualified as a meaning system.
No, my lack of belief does not affect my behavior or give things I do meaning and doesn't influence my interpretation.
Quote from: TwentythreeFor example, does your lack of belief play a role in whether or not you decide to attend church service, political rallies, or certain concerts?
No.
Quote from: TwentythreeDoes you lack of belief influence the types of friends you have or the types of literature you purchase or the types of information you seek out on the internet?
No.
Quote from: Twentythreedoes your If you can answer yes to even one of those questions then your lack of belief in a god has influenced your behavior or shaped the "meaning" of your experience. You can label it whatever you want free thinker, atheist, new atheist whatever. But if your view of reality influences you behavior then i has to be considered in this discussion of meaning systems.
I never said my view in reality did not influence my behavior, but my lack of belief in a god or gods doesn't affect my behavior any more than my lack of belief in unipegagerbils.
Quote from: Twentythree"It's ridiculous to posite that the lack of belief in something is a belief system. That's like saying the lack of blue paint on my car makes my car a blue car."
you are getting belief and meaning confused here.
Care to demonstrate how I've confused the two here?
Quote from: TwentythreeLack of belief is lack of belief but it is in that lack of belief that you derive meaning for the things you do.
Nope, I can't think of a single thing that I've applied meaning to that has anything to do with not believing in a god or gods.
Quote from: TwentythreeEven posting here is influenced by that and therefore gives it meaning.
My posting here is influenced by being able to speak my mind without it getting irrationally removed as well as the other people that post here, my lack of belief in frozen dancing waffles influenced me to post here just as much as my lack of belief in a god or gods.
Quote from: TwentythreeWe are not talking about belief systems but meaning systems.
I was responding to this "These and other belief systems[...]" Which clearly mentions "belief systems" so if we're not talking about belief systems, then why did you quote someone mentioning belief systems?
Quote from: TwentythreePerhaps another question will help illustrate what I'm getting at there. You say that you do not have a belief system. Do you believe that you are correct?
Oh snap, what a conundrum! I don't have to believe that I'm correct, my lack of believing in things means that I don't believe in things.
If one is using Simone Weil as a role model, consider:
She was no advocate of empirical evidence when concerned with 'truth', spiritual or not.
She contracted tuberculoisis and was instructed to rest and eat well. Sshe refused due to her political idealism and activism and a detachment from material things. Coroner's report: "the deceased did kill and slay herself by refusing to eat whilst the balance of her mind was disturbed."
She was attracted to RCC, but declined to be baptized.
She took up parts of other religious traditions: Greek and Egyptian mysteries, parts of Mahayana, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita forms of Buddhism.
She believed that no creature could exist except where God wasn't. Therefore, creation occurred only when God withdrew in part.
The foundation of her theodicy is: Creation is conceived as necessarily containing evil within itself and therefore there is no problem of evil in our perfect world.
She believed that "Evil is the form which God's mercy takes in this world." That evil, and affliction, serves drives us out of ourselves and towards God "The extreme affliction which overtakes human beings does not create human misery, it merely reveals it." and that affliction drives us to "decreation", which is not death, but something akin to nirvana.
There's a lot more more her ramblings. She sounds like a very mixed up young woman.