The Religion/Faith of Atheism

[Dagda]

I am afraid you are wrong. From what I can gather from my brief sojourn into psychology the current theory about the development of religion is that it is an evolutionary development in humans which was used to fulfil various psychological needs. These needs circled around the very basic (a social bonding) to the more complex (giving meaning or an aim to life). We see these tendencies across every culture, and the development of religion is the first step toward civilisation (civilisation follows hot on the heels of religious development). To say that freethinkers somehow rise above this need which is fulfilled by religion is a bit silly; you are either claiming that atheists are the next stage of evolution (a little outlandish) or rise above the evolutionary needs of the rest of humanity (rather unlikely).

If I take modern science as an example. Most of the theories put forward by, say, physics are pointless (can life continue without us knowing if String Theory is correct? Almost definitely). Modern physics, for the most part, is not terribly practical, but that is not the point of science. No, science is meant to push back the boundaries of human understanding. That science is embraced so devoutly is an indication that the one of the reasons religion came into being (a need to understand the world) is still active in modern humans. I am not claiming that science is a religion, but that the wants and needs of modern humans mirror their ancestors’ quite closely, and if the desires which created religion still exist, then it is a good bet that evolution will throw up some kind of religion to meet those needs. The modern phenomenon of new age cults is a by-product of the fall of traditional religions-in the absence of the traditional method to relieve the needs of a people, new avenues for this release is created.

Let me use an anecdote to illustrate my point. I once heard of an atheist who decided to go along to a medium because ‘there is something in it’. That an atheist replaced her traditional belief with a form of ancestor worship could be used as a metaphor for modern man: we can no more rise above our evolutionary desire for religion/whatever than we can rise above our evolutionary desire for sex-it is possible, but only for a very few.

[Whitney]

I'm saying that secular atheists don't need to look towards made up stuff such as superstitions and supernatural beliefs in order to find meaning in their lives.  See number 1 again, you only find that in religion not in freethought communities.

There is absolutely no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit...to put it bluntly.  People believe in strange stuff because it fills the evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives; it just so happens that many people (now and as long as humans have contemplated life philosophically) don't have to look outside of themselves to made up gods in order to feel that their lives are important.

religion is about gods, supernaturalism etc....to say that finding meaning in life is solely a religious concept is to call all volunteer and community activism organizations religious and that's just silly and makes the world religious lose all useful meaning nor is it common usage.

[Typist]

Hmm...   What some theists have in common with some atheists is an experience of certainty, or near certainty.  

Theists have only holy books and personal experience to base a sense of certainty upon.   Atheists have only a lack of evidence to base a sense of certainty upon.  It seems reasonable to label a sense of certainty based upon a lack of evidence as faith, whether the certainty (or near certainty) is held by theists or atheists.

Not all theists and atheists experience this sense of certainty.

I'm not sure it makes sense to label atheism a religion, but it is indeed interesting how similar some theists are to some atheists.  Life can be an irony rich experience.

[elliebean]

Does it require faith to experience near certainty that there are no invisible pink unicorns?

I'm nearly certain that your definition of 'faith' is broader than mine, while your definition of 'certainty' is narrower.

But I have faith that you're not playing the semantics game just to annoy me.  

[Typist]

Does it require faith to experience near certainty that there are no invisible pink unicorns?

Imho, yes, it does require faith to achieve near certainty, because it's possible to make a coherent case that invisible pink unicorns currently do exist, and are actually very close at hand.   Seriously.

In any case, we don't know what we don't know.  Thus, a sense of certainty seems more about our psychological needs, ie emotion, than it is about science.  

Should we install a pink unicorn detector on the space station?   No, there is currently no data to suggest this is a useful way to spend money.

Should we rule out the possibility of pink unicorns in an adamant, condescending, near certain universal kind of way?  No, there is no data to suggest we know enough about reality to take such a position.

[elliebean]

Sounds to me like you've defined all the meaning out of your words. I was just making sure, er...certain.  

Btw, I'm not an expert in optics, but in order for something to be pink, doesn't it have to be visible?

[Typist]

Sounds to me like you've defined all the meaning out of your words. I was just making sure, er...certain.  :-)

Exists:  has mass and weight, and takes up space.

Something that has all these qualities exists right now, inside of YOUR house!   And mine too.  

We don't need faith to see this, logic will do.

We need faith to insist that we KNOW that such a thing could not possibly exist.

In my happy fun loving but serious too opinion.

[Whitney]

Hmmm...never heard anyone claim it takes faith to disbelieve in the IPU...

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.  Not to mention that something can't be invisible (ie produce no color wavelength) and be pink (a color wavelength).

There is also a difference between justified and unjustified certainty as well as the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Or in other words believing in stuff just because you like the idea is absolutely not the same level of justified certainty as not believing in something because there is no evidence of it...faith isn't justified at all.
 
(Typed with my thumbs excuse typos)

[SSY]

Should we rule out the possibility of pink unicorns in an adamant, condescending, near certain universal kind of way?  No, there is no data to suggest we know enough about reality to take such a position.

What if people told you to worship the unicorn and to give money to it, to live by certain rules it had written down for them, under penalty of eternal, mind rending, unimaginable torture? What if there were thousands of other groups of people, all saying similar things for their own colours of unicorns, many of the things they tell you to do being mutually exclusive? Would you still think it reasonable to seriously consider all of them as possibilities?

[Typist]

Hmmm...never heard anyone claim it takes faith to disbelieve in the IPU...

Congratulations!   You can tell your grandkids you were there at the birth of the IPU Religion!  :bananacolor:

Seriously, the faith is in an assumption, unsupported by evidence, that any of us are in the position to state with something like certainty, that there is no IPU.  

I know an invisible pink unicorn is not in the room with me right now

I propose you don't know that, and that there is actually an IPU in the room with you right now.   I'm not filing an application for grant money :-)

[Typist]

What if people told you to worship the unicorn and to give money to it, to live by certain rules it had written down for them, under penalty of eternal, mind rending, unimaginable torture?

I would smile and ignore them.

[Dagda]

There is absolutely no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit...to put it bluntly.  People believe in strange stuff because it fills the evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives; it just so happens that many people (now and as long as humans have contemplated life philosophically) don't have to look outside of themselves to made up gods in order to feel that their lives are important.

religion is about gods, supernaturalism etc....to say that finding meaning in life is solely a religious concept is to call all volunteer and community activism organizations religious and that's just silly and makes the world religious lose all useful meaning nor is it common usage.

I am afraid that you have just proved my point. ‘There is no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit’ and there is’ an evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives’ is a contradiction in terms. 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). 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.

How would you define supernatural? I can’t tell you how Bolshevism is a belief in the supernatural if you do not tell me what it is (my definition would be utterly pointless-you would disagree).

As for certainty: nothing is certain.  I can’t be certain that there is no oil under my garden because I have never checked, but I believe it is not worth my effort checking.

[pinkocommie]

I am afraid you are wrong. From what I can gather from my brief sojourn into psychology the current theory about the development of religion is that it is an evolutionary development in humans which was used to fulfil various psychological needs. These needs circled around the very basic (a social bonding) to the more complex (giving meaning or an aim to life).

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.

[Whitney]

I propose you don't know that, and that there is actually an IPU in the room with you right now.   I'm not filing an application for grant money just presenting a fun riddle to chew on.

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

[Whitney]

I am afraid that you have just proved my point. ‘There is no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit’ and there is’ an evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives’ is a contradiction in terms.

A real human psychological need isn't bullshit, how people may choose to fulfill that need is.  Sigh...I give up, you have no clue what you are talking about and are a waste of my time.