Ojuice5001

I have always thought an important selling point of the Religio Romana is that is provides a sharp sense of the spiritual connectedness that exists in the world. Today I'd like to ask, Can atheist philosophies provide connectedness?

I was surprised to find that many ideas associated with atheism actually hinder humans from being well-connected with the world. Christianity merely ignores the need for connectedness, with sporadic attempts to satisfy it. It's not worse than you'd expect from a religion that denies all gods but one. But atheistic philosophies actively create problems for those who want to be connected to the world. I will break the world down into supernatural, conceptual, and natural.

Most obviously, atheists cannot be connected to the supernatural world, because most don't believe it exists; they are naturalists. Even a nontheistic supernaturalist, or a pantheist, is missing a large part of reality, just like if an alien landed on Earth and encountered only cattle and birds.

The atheistic idea of nominalism also severs connections to the conceptual world, by telling them that concepts are merely mental constructs. I know atheists don't have to be nominalists, but the kind of person who doesn't take gods seriously is the kind of person who doesn't take objective concepts seriously. William of Occam is a good example of this.

Atheism attacks connection to nature less directly, but it still does. That's why many moderns are so enthusiastic about nature. The only direct interference consists of atheists missing the supernatural aspect of natural phenomena. That wouldn't be too bad in itself, but the rise of atheism coincides with the rise of industrialization. I am not saying industrialization is bad; it allows us to live much easier lives. Nevertheless, industrialization has the side effect of removing from our lives all kinds of things; most things, in fact, except humans and the things they have created. Materialism thinks of matter as being dead and behaving repetitively, so I can see how materialism would encourage dead, repetitive production processes like nineteenth-century factories.

I have asssumed throughout that spiritual connections are real. Why should you believe this? Well, the simple reason is that people have experienced spirtual connections. I know naturalists think that these experiences are illusory, but this is unconvincing. Just because the experience has natural causes and properties, and is about something nonnatural, doesn't mean it is false. That doesn't follow, and yet as far as I can see, that's the primary reason for rejecting experiences of spirtual connectedness.

Celsus

Begging the question. Show how "spiritual connectedness" exists. The standard rules for evidence applies. We don't provide anything if it doesn't exist. What exactly do you mean by "connectedness"?
Explain. If you are thinking about postmodernism, look elsewhere. Methodological naturalism is a de facto refutation of postmodernists' navel-gazing.
This doesn't make sense either. What are you talking about?
I think you're tripping. Is tripping your idea of "connectedness"?
More question begging. Show how the supernatural exists, without recourse to naturalistic explanations.
Non sequitur. Facts are objective. Beliefs and even interpretations of facts are not. And?
What exactly are you talking about? I smell a straw man.
It also coincides with modernity, rationality, human rights, communism, airplanes and cars. Establish causation, not correlation.
And what does this have to do with atheism? Correlation and causation, remember?
I see you've been reading Christian tracts again. Materialism is nothing of the sort. Go and look it up yourself.
Not illusory, but socially or psychologically constructed.
It doesn't mean its false, but it does mean that the reasons given for the experience are false. i.e. the supernatural is precluded through a natural explanation. If you still want to connect it to the supernatural, then by all means, carry on your hallucinations.

Joel

Autonemesis

I don't get that at all. It sounds like just a bunch of fanciful myths and stories to me. From what I have read, the Romans didn't even take it all that seriously.

Ojuice5001

You're confusing Roman paganism with Greek paganism. Most of the same gods; different religions. The Romans took their relationships with the gods very seriously.

Selsaral

It sounds like you are asking 'Can atheist philosophies provide theistic philosophies?'. Your whole idea of 'connectedness' sounds like theistic dogma to me. Why would someone who rejects theism want to provide theism?

The Naked Mage

Say, weren't the Romans those ridiculously materialistic perverts who all died of lead poisoning?

Ojuice5001

That was the rich elite. The common people were as pious as anyone.

Eudaimonist

I don't see why not. Atheist philosophies cannot provide a feeling of connection to divine beings (according to definition), but they do nothing to hinder a sense of connection with the natural universe. You personally might feel this as a lack, but metaphysical naturalists need not.

However, since we are talking about "selling points", different atheistic philosophies may provide different benefits. Someone who likes Carl Sagan's ideas may get a pantheistic feel of connectedness to "starstuff", while a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy may instead find a spirituality of "the exaltation of man's self-esteem, and the sacredness of his happiness on earth." [from the intro to The Fountainhead, italics hers]

There are different atheistic spiritualities possible, and I don't think that all spiritualities need be judged by the single criteria of "connectedness".

Shadowy Man

If the supernatural really existed, atheists (as well as everyone else) would be connected to it, irrespective of their belief in it.

philechat

Weird. Why is the whole "connectedness" argument related to spirituality? I am very lost here. As far as mystical experiences go, atheists have them as strongly as anyone else, only that they ascribe the experiences to some other causes (not gods). To insist there is a dichotomy of, say, spiritual and natural, is meaningless. What is experienced must be a property of the natural world itself, and the natural is in no ways dead or machanical. It was a Christian misconception that all matter is dead and without mind (except those with a "soul" per se). A fallacy of composition through and through.