The Religion/Faith of Atheism

[elliebean]

Religion is not philosophy.
Philosophy is not religion.
Also...
religions are not philosophies
and philosophies are not religions
But...
there are things about some religions that are also covered under certain areas of philosophy;
there are philosophical notions incorporated into some religious doctrines;
an area of philosophy can spring up from within (and usually only functions within) a particular religion,
and I suppose a religion could arise out of a particular philosophy.
Beyond that, I see very little of either having much of anything to do with the other.
And science would just as soon never speak to either one.

They're not even the same kind of thing. Philosophy is a process by which ideas are postulated, questioned, examined, debated, and either accepted or refuted; religion is a cultural/social construct whose doctrines and traditions are irrefutable. In philosophy, you start with an idea and then try to prove it wrong to find out if it's true. In religion, you start out with what you accept as Truth and then try to come up with ideas in order to justify it.


But then again, I'm kinda buzzed.

nvm.

[AlP]

It's hard to draw the line but... I think religion, or at least theology, is philosophy. Science is also philosophy. Philosophy is sophisticated thought, with interest in fields such as epistemology and ontology. Both of these are the topics of theology and science. I agree with one and not the other but I won't deny theology its status as philosophy. Or in other words, I disagree with the likes of Kant but he was a philosopher by any measure.

[pinkocommie]

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

I agree with your expansion of the definition, I'm just not certain it's necessary.

[AlP]

Religious belief may seem to be a unique psychological experience, but a growing body of research shows that thinking about religion is no different from thinking about secular things­â€"at least from the standpoint of the brain. In the first imaging study to compare religious and nonreligious thoughts, evaluating the truth of either type of statement was found to involve the same regions of the brain.

Link.

[Dagda]

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! :-)

Oh, no. Nietzsche famously declared ‘God is dead’, but he despised secularists with a passion (in his mind the only thing worse than a priest was a secularist). He convinced me that I (personally) could not find meaning in a world without a god-head/collective consciousness thing. Very interesting philosopher. I have come to an atheist forum because there is nothing better than to meet people who don’t agree with you- that way your ideas grow stronger.

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.

Probably right about that.

[Typist]

However, for an Epicurean the idea that at the end of life (all life) is oblivion and nothing else would be quite the thing.

In another context Newton said, "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction."  

We're all aware of the survival instinct.   Maybe there is an oblivion instinct to balance that, and make the system whole?   I don't mean a desire for eventual oblivion at the end of life.  I mean an ongoing moment to moment desire for oblivion throughout our life, just like the survival instinct.

What is it exactly that we want to survive?   "Me", a concept in our head.   Our thoughts, our opinions, our identity, our memories, the "me".  Survival instinct instructs the "me" to keep existing at almost all costs.  

But we seem enthusiastic about killing our "me" on an ongoing basis too.  

Why do we love a hilarious joke, and laugh hysterically?   For a moment or two in the hilarity, our "me" is gone.  Why are we so eager for all kinds of stimulations?  When our mind is overwhelmed with input, our "me" is pushed aside for just a bit.

When a rocket is fired in to the air, gravity is still pulling steadily on the rocket, even as the rocket rises higher and higher.  

I sense this inner desire for oblivion is like that.   It's always there, quietly and patiently pulling us back towards the ground we came from, it's effects hidden under the noisy survival melodramas of the "me".  The trajectory of a rocket is determined both by the "life force" applied to it, and by the "gravity of oblivion" pulling it back towards Earth.  

 I sense our lives are like that.  Two opposing forces operating in tandem, at the same time.  

Not the kind of dualistic polarity our minds so love to create.  Black or white, live or die, zero or one, science or religion, right or wrong, etc etc.

Instead, a wholeness.  We want to live, and we want to die, both, at the same time.  Nature.  A circle.   We want both life and death, and we get both.  

And maybe that's a meaning to life?   We're getting exactly what we want, what more meaning do we really need?  

It seems religious people are trying to explore and understand these kind of factors, and have been for a very long time.  They use religious concepts and language, because that is how their particular type of mind prefers to frame the issue.

But others with a different frame of mind can approach the same kinds of reflections without messing around with religion, or so it seems here.  

Anyway, this is what the pink unicorn under my bed told me to type.   I have no idea what any of it means....

[mzuniga]

Proposition: Humpty Dumpty was once real. He was a living, animated, sapient egg, who unfortunately came to an untimely end. He lived sometime in the middle ages. Upon his demise, the Monarch of the kingdom Humpty Dumpty called his home, rushed to the scene, along with all his minions. Alas, he was too late, and could provide no assistance.

It is a sad tale.

Do you believe this proposition? If not, you are an antidumptiest. Does it take an act of faith to be an antidumptiest?

Proposition: At the center of the earth, small green crystal otters live. They direct the planet earth in it’s orbit around the sun. Without these small green crystal otters, the earth would spin off out of its orbit, and we would all die. (Important note: at the center of Venus, there are no small green crystal otters. In Venus, they’re beavers!)

Do you believe that? Do you think it takes an act of faith not to believe it?

Faith is believing in something without evidence, or with insufficient evidence. A logical conclusion is believing in something because of evidence, or not believing it because of lack of evidence.

[Typist]

A logical conclusion is believing in something because of evidence, or not believing it because of lack of evidence.

Yes.   Believing there is no God without evidence, or with insufficient evidence, is faith.

In order for a lack of evidence of XYZ to be meaningful, we would have to show that the tool being used to collect data, could find XYZ if it was there.

If I take a ten dollar pair of binoculars, and try to find distant galaxies, it proves nothing about galaxies if I find no galaxies.

What is the evidence that the human mind could currently find an intelligence so large that it could create billions of galaxies, if such an intelligence exists?    

There is no such evidence.  We can't find a single cell of any kind of intelligence anywhere in the universe, except on earth.   We are using a ten dollar pair of binoculars.   The resulting data is worthless.   For now.

[mzuniga]

Yes, what you say is true, but the logic you are espousing depends very much on what you call “God.”

For example: God â€" the intelligence that created the universe.

Think just a second about what this definition does not mean: All of the statements below are entirely consistent with this theory:

1) Such an intelligence once existed, when the universe was created, but it exists no more.
2) Such an intelligence still exists, but it exists outside of our universe, and is therefore, sublimely unaware of our existence.
3) If made aware somehow, it would feel supreme indifference, not that it would be able to do anything about it in any case.
4) Such an intelligence can, and does, make mistakes.
5) Such an intelligence, although it knows far more than we do, doesn’t know everything.
6) Such an intelligence isn’t inherently good. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad.
7) Such an intelligence is not a single entity â€" it is a race of beings.

If such an intelligence once existed, then it would have created this universe some 14 billion years ago. Fourteen billion years is long, long time. Given that span of time, I find it unlikely that such a being would still exist. If it does exist, I find it much more reasonable to suppose it is a race of beings, not just one. If they do exist, they probably don’t know about us, and if they do know about us, they probably don’t care.

All of these statements, of course, are merely suppositions, but they are suppositions based on known scientific facts. Fact: the only known method of moving from simple life to complex life is the process of evolution. Species evolve, not single organisms. These gods, if they exist, must be the product of an evolutionary process. This is why it is far more likely that there are (or were) many, not just one.

Now, the Christian version:

God â€" a male. Creator of the universe. Always existed, always will exist. Created a universe which for nearly 14 billion years did not include man (unless you are a fundamentalist, and you believe that God created the universe 5,000 years ago). The universe spans 156 billion light years, but God is only interested in the beings living on the third plant of a rather unimpressive star on the fringe of one of the estimated 125 billion galaxies that exist.

And he cares about what you do, at night, in your bedroom.

He knows everything, he is all powerful, and he is all loving.

He can do anything, and everything, except eliminate suffering in the world. Ah well, them’s the breaks.

The Christian God is self-contradictory. No being can be all knowing, all powerful and all beneficent. It’s simply not possible, therefore, the Christian God â€" as they define him â€" simply cannot exist.

Not believing in his existence is not an act of faith â€" it’s just plain common sense.

[Typist]

If such an intelligence once existed, then it would have created this universe some 14 billion years ago. Fourteen billion years is long, long time. Given that span of time, I find it unlikely that such a being would still exist. If it does exist, I find it much more reasonable to suppose it is a race of beings, not just one. If they do exist, they probably don’t know about us, and if they do know about us, they probably don’t care.

All of these statements, of course, are merely suppositions, but they are suppositions based on known scientific facts. Fact: the only known method of moving from simple life to complex life is the process of evolution. Species evolve, not single organisms. These gods, if they exist, must be the product of an evolutionary process. This is why it is far more likely that there are (or were) many, not just one.

That's interesting speculation, thanks for that.   I enjoyed it.  A race of beings, that's good.  

Now, the Christian version:  Not believing in his existence is not an act of faith â€" it’s just plain common sense.

Please understand I'm not drawn to the Christian God myself.   I'm just trying to follow the logic trail, ok?

There is no evidence that our common sense is adequate to the job of understanding Gods, should they exist.   We can't even find a single tiny shred of _any kind of life _anywhere except on this one tiny planet.   A 100% failure rate at finding intelligence elsewhere.

The faith is an assumption that our logic and common sense are adequate to do the God calculation.   Many atheists believe this just as blindly and passionately as many Christians believe in their God.  

Many readers will absolutely hate this fact.   Here's why.  They aren't actually interested in exploring reality, but in finding someone to be superior too, just like many theists.  The dividing line between theists and atheists is mostly man made illusion.

[i_am_i]

Not believing in his existence is not an act of faith â€" it’s just plain common sense.

I'll go even farther than that. I'll call it simple logic.

(I'm really only an amatuer at this. I'll be most happy for any experts to correct me here.)

Okay. Let's define "idea" as a formulated thought or opinion.

1. All ideas are formulated in the human mind.
2. God is an idea.
3. God was formulated in the human mind.

It seems valid to me. Of course I'm saying here that ideas are innately human, since I've seen no evidence that anything but humans can have ideas. Certainly it is only humans who can effectively communicate ideas so that works for my argument. And there is absolutely nothing that I'm aware of to show that God was ever anything more than an idea. So, if God is nothing more than an idea formulated in the human mind then...

Well, you see what I'm driving at.

[mzuniga]

The dividing line between theists and atheists is mostly man made illusion.

Oh I like that!!!! Oh that’s so good. I’m just gonna have to steal that from you and use it sometime  

You understand of course (it just dawned on me that perhaps you didn’t realize it when you wrote it) that it has a double meaning.

Please understand I'm not drawn to the Christian God myself. I'm just trying to follow the logic trail, ok?

Yes, I understood that. If I came off as being a bit brash, or offensive, I’m truly sorry. That was not my intention.

There is no evidence that our common sense is adequate to the job of understanding Gods, should they exist.

Yes, this is true. However, this statement also implies that there is no evidence that our faith (if you’ll pardon the expression) in the veracity and validity of logic is warranted.

If logic is valid, then the Christian God, as he is defined by the Christians, cannot exist. This is not a faith, it is simply an application of logic. But if logic is invalid, then all bets are off.

But, as I look around, I notice that logic works. It really does, and it has been working for a very long time now. I have seen misapplications of logic, of course, and I’ve seen mistakes in logic, but those can be corrected. So, because of that evidence, I trust in logic.

Is that a faith?

Others may disagree, but I think not. But then again, thinking about it, I only disagree because I say that my argument is based upon verifiable evidence (that logic works) which is simply an application of logic! So we can go round and round. The problem is, going round and round in this manner really gets us nowhere, if you see my drift.

[Typist]

Yes, I understood that. If I came off as being a bit brash, or offensive, I’m truly sorry. That was not my intention.

No worries.  I dish it out, so I have to be a good sport about taking it too.  Not a problem.   If I get upset, my little mess to clean up.

Yes, this is true. However, this statement also implies that there is no evidence that our faith (if you’ll pardon the expression) in the veracity and validity of logic is warranted.

Logic is good for what it has been proven to be good for, right?   We have clear evidence that logic is good for building space shuttles, bridges, etc.

On the other hand, we currently have no evidence that logic could discover Gods, given that we can't even discover the simplest forms of alien life with it.  Yet.

If logic is valid, then the Christian God, as he is defined by the Christians, cannot exist. This is not a faith, it is simply an application of logic. But if logic is invalid, then all bets are off.

My guess is that logic is not invalid, but incomplete, a work in progress, within one tiny creature on one tiny planet etc.

But, as I look around, I notice that logic works. It really does, and it has been working for a very long time now. I have seen misapplications of logic, of course, and I’ve seen mistakes in logic, but those can be corrected. So, because of that evidence, I trust in logic.

Me too, I'm a major logic weenie, to a compulsive degree.   As you've seen, I'm trying to show the limits of logic, with logic, and thus fall in to the same problem as everybody else.   I could be completely wrong.  

Is that a faith?

It's not faith to believe logic can build good bridges.  We have evidence.

It is faith to believe logic can understand Gods.  We have no evidence.

The problem is, going round and round in this manner really gets us nowhere, if you see my drift.

I do get your drift.  Thought about this a lot, being the blowhard that I am.

We can document that it gets us to fun, and some ego buzz, in the moment of going round and round.   Fun is good.  

And...

If we go round and round enough to realize we aren't getting anywhere, and maybe never will, that might open the door to some new perspectives.

[i_am_i]

On the other hand, we currently have no evidence that logic could discover Gods, given that we can't even discover the simplest forms of alien life with it.  Yet.

Oh brother. Where did you come up with the notion that logic is intented to "discover" anything?

Maybe, at this point, it would be a good idea for you to tell us what exactly you mean when you use the word logic, because so far I don't see that you have any grasp on the concept at all, seeing as how you have yet to make one single logical argument.

[Typist]

Hi J!