James Still

I'm not sure I understand the point. Or is this just a polemic against atheism? If societies are endangered by power then a Christian theocracy (such as the Taliban's Afghanistan or the Holy Roman Empire) are just as vulnerable and unstable as would be a so-called atheist state. And that's the genius of the U.S. secular state. By breaking away from legitimacy through king and God and forming a union "of the people," God has been effectively removed from day to day governance.

James Still

<strong>
1. Religion is part of the fabric of who we are.

This doesn't seem particularly controversial, though I'd say that "who we are" is not necessasrily set in stone, incapable of alteration. I'd give this ability to put cracks in our architecture, not allowing our existence to dictate our essence, to be inextricably who we are as well -- namely we have a certain amount of freedom to change ourselves.</strong>

I agree. When I say "this is who we are" I mean that we are the sum total of our collective experiences, hopes, dreams, desires, actions, and inactions. But it is sheer folly to think that we can erase our past as a means to redefine who we are in the future. It seems to me that we must embrace even our most basest superstitions and identify with them. We who are Americans have a nasty habit of thinking we can wipe slates clean, progressing and burying the past in order to recreate ourselves in an entirely new way. As an existentialist I do not think that there is an essence that precedes our existence; our essence is the accumulation of those choices we make during our existence. And not just as the boundary where present meets future but the past as well.

<strong>
2. It is foolish to rid ourselves of religion.

Well, this needs support, unless you think there is an independent reason for being "realistic". Just as realism is part of who we are, so also is idealism. We live in both worlds, and I'd say it is the latter which is the more important, not the former.</strong>

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between realism and idealism. I'm not trying to make an epistemological claim. I mean only that religion must change and dissolve of its own accord and not because we are trying to purge it. Attempts to purge something (such as the attempt to purge religion by the Soviets) will create a backlash that is counterproductive.

<strong>
3. "But many nonbelievers hold out hope for a religious-free future."

If this is true, I would rather think they would merely "wish" for a "religious-free future" rather than having a legitimate hope for it. Having a legitimate hope rather presupposes a kind of religious experience, something I suspect they would wish to deny. How comes you to regard it this way?</strong>

Do you really believe that having hope is a kind of religious experience? I don't. To hope is as natural as to breath. Hoping and wishing are related; in both cases we are desirous of a certain outcome that we feel is beneficial.

<strong>
4. "With us still is Star Trek’s powerful metaphor in which everyone is a perfect humanist; yet, isn't the fascistic Federation, where everyone works in service of the state, a bit too creepy for comfort?"

I'm not sure what connection this has to your argument. Are you denying the legitimacy of an ideal held by your interlocutor merely on the basis that you find it creepy? This rather goes against the entire thread of your embracing all beliefs held by others.</strong>

I think you're reading me too literally. I'm merely trying to point out that our utopian ideas have drawbacks and unintended consequences that we often gloss over or never consider.

<strong>
5. "Far from wishing to wipe the slate clean in some kind of psychic pogrom, the new atheist should embrace these various forms of ritual as something uniquely human. This is who we are.

This is quite insufficient, I think, to dispel dreams. By the same argument, you are condoning warfare, criminality, deceit, and the many forms of profligacy.</strong>

Wow, I'm not sure how you understand me to be condoning warfare and criminality! Do you deny that criminality, deceit, brutal warfare, barbarism and cruelty are who we are? As a Christian George Bush sees the world as a simplistic division between Good and Evil (us and them). The Middle East has now taught him that the world is actually a million shades of gray. There is evil inside of each and every one of us just as there is the capacity for enormous charity and good. Acknowledging this reality is not the same thing as condoning certain actions. But I think that we must admit that there is evil within ourselves so that it doesn't have inordinate power over us. (Because that's the irony: those who commit the most barbaric acts think that they are doing good.)

<strong>
6. "Disbelief in God does not mean that one must excise respect or even admiration for the rich tapestry of human life in all of its rituals, observances, and quirks."

This almost appears to be an appeal to voyeurism, rather than an acceptance of the faith itself. If the shoe were on the other foot, how would this affect your argument?</strong>

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here Owl. Perhaps you could clarify a bit.

<strong>
"Far from desiring a soulless existence, atheists should embrace the "religious impulse" and see it for what it is: a very naturalistic human desire to find value and meaning in an uncaring universe."

If it is natural for some, but unnatural for others, then why should those who find it unnatural -- i.e., disbelievers -- require anything more than a tolerance? Why must they fully embrace it? Indeed, how can it be fully embraced without a full belief?</strong>

I should say that in this statement I'm presupposing that each of us desire meaning (that we are meaning-makers) and that we very much want to make sense of the world and our place in it. So by "religious impulse" I mean to say the desire to erase the void that is within each of us by default as human beings. If existence precedes essence, as I believe it does, then the void is entirely natural because we have no purpose in life and must create meaning and purpose as we go along. That process is fueled by our knowledge of the void and the need to create meaning. I think that all religion is an attempt to address this existential awareness. And I think that atheists address this void just as meaningfully as any spiritual person. So that's why I say that the impulse is a very naturalistic human desire. If I were to sloganize my thoughts on the matter it might be something like "religion is a humanism." But I'd want to think that one through a bit.

[Edited a sentence in the last paragraph for the sake of clarity.]

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]</p>

David Bowden

This also occurred to me as I read through these posts. Why can't a multitude of non-theistic "denominations" of philosophical schools begin to flourish as traditional religion declines? There need not be - probably could not be - a central organizing 'authority' - it would be a matter of fostering excellence in communion with one another and being accountable to reason.

I suppose faddish western Buddhism and/or the popular New Age "Lite Religions" are sort of a less-than-purely-secular parallel to what I'm imagining here. People have questions about all sorts of things, and traditional religion doesn't satisfy a vast swath of the population nowadays. Couldn't entirely secular traditions pick up where new religious movements leave off?

Can a "secular stoicism" or modern epicureanism be developed as a basically all-encompassing philosophy of life, satisfying, perhaps ritualistic, but without the doctrines or "revealed truths" that tend to be the real thorns in our sides? We don't all have to belong to the same secular tradition - let each person cultivate her own garden, etc. and find what meets their needs, without falling over the edge into unwarranted beliefs.

I'm not saying that I've succeeded in creating such an animal, but I think that, given human ingenuity in creating all these myriad religions, many secular traditions can emerge.

I suppose the only "unforgiveable sin" in such an endeavor would be: "Thou shalt not be doctrinaire about things beyond reason and common experience."

-Wanderer

PS, I mentioned stoicism and epicureanism particularly because my readings of Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus and Lucretius have been most satisfying and refreshingly non-Abrahamic as I've adjusted to living a moral life ooutside the Christianity I grew up with. And I suspect that many other unbelievers have had the same experience: most of my stoic and epicurean texts came from Prometheus Books. Highly recommended.

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

boneyard bill

James Still writes:

The post was in response to a previous post by Indifference who claimed that an atheist society would unite humanity as never before. My claim isn't that religion has or can produce any kind of ideal society. I'm simply arguing that atheism can't either because a society needs leadership and leadership begets power which begets conflict and the desire of others to gain power. It's a matter of human nature - not religion or atheism.

boneyard bill

Wide-eyed Wanderer writes:

But if you look at it historically, the modern religions began as almost secular alternatives to the religions of their age. This is most clearly seen in Buddhism where the Buddha criticized the ritualistic and legalistic Brahminism of his day and offered a rational philosophical system very similar to Stoicism as an alternative. The same is true of Taoism which is even more similar to Stoicism. The Tao Te Ching was particularly concerned with arguing against authoritarianism but subsequent Taoists also argued against the highly legalistic formalism of Confucianism.

Even in Christianity, it is hard to see where Paul's ethics differ much from the Stoics. Paul was from Tarus, which was a hotbed of Stoicism, and Paul's major concern seems to be to reconcile his experience and beliefs with Old Testament scripture. Despite his conversion, he retained his loyalty to Judaism, but somehow he had to account for the inefficacy of Torah.

If we ever put together a new "secular" philosophical system that gains wide acceptance over our existing religions; it will come to be seen, historically, as a new religion.

Bill

While I would never assert that I've succeeded in creating such an entity as you discuss, I would say that I've given it at least a good first shot in the form of my <a href="http://www.agnostic.org/" target="_blank">Agnostic Church</a>. I would hope that it could survive as at least one secular tradition worth exploring.

And of course, when things are within the realm of reason and/or common sense, it is quite permissible to be <a href="http://www.agnostic.org/BIBLEJ.htm" target="_blank">dogmatic or "doctrinaire"</a> about those sorts of things. I'm still going through the process of continually re-thinking <a href="http://www.agnostic.org/BIBLEJ.htm" target="_blank">my own dogmatic assertions</a>, but I would be the last to deny that such things would seem to be necessary in order to keep us on the road to a higher level of morality.

== Bill

James Still

<strong>boneyard bill: Indifference ... claimed that an atheist society would unite humanity as never before. My claim isn't that religion has or can produce any kind of ideal society. I'm simply arguing that atheism can't either because a society needs leadership and leadership begets power which begets conflict and the desire of others to gain power. It's a matter of human nature - not religion or atheism.</strong>

I understand now and agree. It would be impossible to imagine a purely rationalistic state. Irrational rituals, rites, customs, and taboos are a part of the glue that holds societies together. I do agree with Freud (in his Totem and Taboo) that many primitive rituals and observances arose out of purely secular needs. For instance, the primitive organizations of extended families into totems and clans was an extremely effective way to prevent incest. And incest is now one of our deepest taboos, such is the power of that meme.

joedad

Atheists are obviously able to find meaning and purpose in their lives, so I'd say that they definitely experience the "religious impulse." But framing it so makes that very naturalistic impulse appear to be religious by default. It is what it is, and is only referred to religiously because of culture. Calling it the religious impulse or the atheistic impulse does not change it. We could call it many different things but it would not change what it is. This is my view.

I'm in near 100 percent agreement with all the thoughts and arguments presented in this thread. But one major piece of religion that has thus far not been mentioned is immortality.

There are certainly many reasons for wanting to believe that we are personally immortal. Good, bad or indifferent, those reasons exist, and immortality seems to be the communion between person and religion that maintains religion's appeal. What exactly is a person experiencing when he or she thinks about immortality, and why are religion and immortality so closely linked? In other words, What is so "religious" about the idea of immortality?

I am familiar with christian immortality. But I know today that such a belief is really just a makeover of childhood hopes and fears. We are taught that if we are good, we will be rewarded. As adults, that transforms into believing that we will be rewarded similarly after we die, the best reward being that we get everything we ever wanted in a place called heaven. But I see that as just a ruse. The real appeal to the believer is the quite selfish appeal of personal immortality itself.

In conversations with theists, I find that a belief in personal immortality is a near complete impediment to formulating a vision of the human future. If I could propose a religious "fix" to this near universal problem, at least among christians, it would be to propose as commandment, "Thou shalt have two visions of the human future, one including thyself and one not."

I know that sounds quaint. But in my experience, a belief in personal immortality effectively short circuits the process of attempting to describe a future human society, that, imperfect as it is, is better than the one which exists today, and which is not simply a theological or spiritual substitute for the real thing. In a way, this is a very real religious Achilles heel, as humanity continues to grow in knowledge.

Immortality needs to undergo a transformation from being personal to being both personal and collective, but not in the classical sense where individual people are allowed to believe that they themselves will survive death. Their understanding of immortality needs to be knit into a vision of the future where people see themselves being sensed by those futuristic members of society as unforgotten ancestors, so that in fact, they live on in the dreams and actions of their real living descendents. The future becomes a real place with real people, and the unwholesomeness of present, unavoidable, personal, death is replaced, or at least softened, with a genuine hopeful expectation of better life to come. In fact, properly envisioned, one could even honestly believe that he or she could live again, kinda like that movie "Heaven Can Wait."

At least that's how I think about immortality these days, and it's quite comforting knowing that I will be survived by individual persons who will strive to improve humanity's lot, while recognizing that it is inherently imperfect and quite unfair, but nevertheless worth the trouble to "fix." Religion and gods become unimportant and unnecessary as measuring rods of human worth, and belief in personal religious immortality and reward become hedonistic.

joe

boneyard bill

joedad writes:

What Christian immortality are you familiar with? What you describe may be true of Catholicism, but fundamentalists insist that good works will not get you in to heaven. Salvation is matter of God's grace and human's are inherently too imperfect to make to heaven on the basis of merit. "All fall short of the glory of God," as Paul said. You may have a childish view of immortality, but you shouldn't, for that reason, impute it to others.

owleye

James...

"When I say "this is who we are" I mean that we are the sum total of our collective experiences, hopes, dreams, desires, actions, and inactions. But it is sheer folly to think that we can erase our past as a means to redefine who we are in the future."

Saying it is "sheer folly" is not an argument of course, but on the face of it, I don't quite see how we are incapable of erasing our past as a means to redefine who we will become. Indeed, it seems that this is a requirement for redefining who we will become.


"It seems to me that we must embrace even our most basest superstitions and identify with them."

Though I'm not convinced of this, and you've really not given any evidence to support it, I might suggest that even if it were true it might only a point on the path to a further enlightenment which makes possible the ability to "erase our past" and change ourselves.

"We who are Americans have a nasty habit of thinking we can wipe slates clean, progressing and burying the past in order to recreate ourselves in an entirely new way."

Again, no support for it being a "nasty habit", but in any case I should think that Americans are not to be excluded just because of your condemnation of what they think.

"As an existentialist I do not think that there is an essence that precedes our existence; our essence is the accumulation of those choices we make during our existence. And not just as the boundary where present meets future but the past as well."

As an existentialist you need all the more support for claiming we should not "erase the past" You are making a moral claim here, not a factual one. It seems to me that an existentialist believes we can "erase" the past. It is your duty to tell us why we shouldn't do this. So far, you haven't done this.

"I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between realism and idealism."

It is quite simple. The way the world is compared to the way the world should be. I've detected that you are trying to make a case that religion has value and the rug ought not to be pulled out from under it. I certainly would agree with this, but I think it needs more support than merely saying it is part of who we are.

"I'm not trying to make an epistemological claim. I mean only that religion must change and dissolve of its own accord and not because we are trying to purge it."

Let me suppose that you don't mean by this that religions should dissolve themselves, since this would suggest they don't have intrinsic value. instead, what you are suggesting is that religions ought to be free to decide for themselves whether it has value. However, to what extent would you support this autonomy? Do you support the establishment clause in the constitution?

"Attempts to purge something (such as the attempt to purge religion by the Soviets) will create a backlash that is counterproductive."

This may be a pragmatic reason for not purging religion, but supposing that it can be done without creating a backlash, would it then be permissible?

"I think you're reading me too literally. I'm merely trying to point out that our utopian ideas have drawbacks and unintended consequences that we often gloss over or never consider. "

That we often gloss over drawbacks is no reason not to try. It seems to me you are merely being pessimistic.

"Acknowledging this reality [evil] is not the same thing as condoning certain actions. But I think that we must admit that there is evil within ourselves so that it doesn't have inordinate power over us. (Because that's the irony: those who commit the most barbaric acts think that they are doing good.)"

What then do you mean by "embracing" who we are? It seems to me you are embracing evil. The point I'm making is that who we are is changeable. We can become other what who we currently are to make it so that that is who we were, but no longer.

"That process is fueled by our knowledge of the void and the need to create meaning. I think that all religion is an attempt to address this existential awareness. And I think that atheists address this void just as meaningfully as any spiritual person. So that's why I say that the impulse is a very naturalistic human desire. If I were to sloganize my thoughts on the matter it might be something like "religion is a humanism." But I'd want to think that one through a bit."

While all this may be significant, it does not support your position. From the above, it is the value you attribute to religion, one that is shared by non-believers, that you wish to promote, not religion itself. If this is all you had in mind, I can readily withdraw my comments.

owleye