tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7545096496593925837..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: In what sense is atheism a religion, and what are the atheistic options? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24511082777260904052017-02-10T03:58:56.905-07:002017-02-10T03:58:56.905-07:00Given that it has come up on a more recent thread,...Given that it has come up on a more recent thread, might we say the same of global warming, perhaps?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7249494657095686352017-01-28T07:30:14.738-07:002017-01-28T07:30:14.738-07:00I personally do not consider atheism to be a relig...I personally do not consider atheism to be a religion. <b>BUT</b>, it sure acts like one. It is an evangelical, proselytizing <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2015/03/craig-responds-to-boghossian.html" rel="nofollow">faith</a>, with its own prophets (Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Hitchens, et.al.), its own sacred texts, and its own eschatology (the singularity, transhumanism).<br /><br />So, if it quacks like a duck..<br /><br />(Interestingly enough, Stephen Prothero, in his wonderful book <i>God is Not One</i>, makes a strong case for <i>treating</i> atheism as a religion, even if it is not.)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47166693751979927782017-01-28T06:54:30.106-07:002017-01-28T06:54:30.106-07:00Well, we all know that Trump is president, that we...Well, we all know that Trump is president, that we should feed our kids, and that we can hope for promotion at work. We don't need a religion to tell us this. Victor's three questions are aiming at bigger fish than this, I think.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27898041577579439392017-01-27T22:14:58.851-07:002017-01-27T22:14:58.851-07:00@ David Brightly,
"That's fine. But what...@ David Brightly,<br /><br />"That's fine. But what about an atheism that refuses to be elaborated? That rejects the possibility of knowledge beyond the mundane, denies any obligations other than to oneself and one's fellows, treats all hopes beyond the ordinary hopes of love and work as false? I grant that this would be a faith position, but it seems to me the very antithesis of religion."<br /><br />From OP's definition of religion:<br />"What can I know? What must I do? What can I hope?"<br /><br />It seems you have religion in the sense that you *know* the mundane, you have *obligations* to oneself and one's fellows, an have ordinary *hopes*. <br /><br />Even if it's a shabby religion, by the definition, it is a religion none the less.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23225204724382771632017-01-27T20:58:49.296-07:002017-01-27T20:58:49.296-07:00Joe Hinman said...
" hey Dusty i have the...Joe Hinman said...<br /><br />" hey Dusty i have the smarts to make my own intellectual fun that doesn't change the fact that most of what we see on the net is shallow repetition,"<br />"We" includes me, and since I see mostly engagement with others who disagree with me, or rational commentary on current events, or discussions of various intellectual or philosophical subjects your statement is factually incorrect.<br /><br />The ways of Aquinas end with statements that are factually false for this sort of reason, I am part of "everybody".<br /><br /><br /> January 26, 2017 8:13 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89137812812147171562017-01-27T02:24:01.738-07:002017-01-27T02:24:01.738-07:00So we have an elegant symmetry: mere theism of its...So we have an elegant symmetry: mere theism of itself doesn't constitute a religion, but it can form the basis of an elaborated belief system that offers answers to our three questions and does make a religion. Likewise mere atheism doesn't make a religion but elaborations of atheism such as the ones above can constitute a religion in so far as they offer answers to said questions. That's fine. But what about an atheism that refuses to be elaborated? That rejects the possibility of knowledge beyond the mundane, denies any obligations other than to oneself and one's fellows, treats all hopes beyond the ordinary hopes of love and work as false? I grant that this would be a faith position, but it seems to me the very antithesis of religion.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71853062111050649212017-01-26T08:13:45.457-07:002017-01-26T08:13:45.457-07:00hey Dusty i have the smarts to make my own intelle...hey Dusty i have the smarts to make my own intellectual fun that doesn't change the fact that most of what we see on the net is shallow repetition, ever been on face book?<br /><br />Make a deal with you, show we one atheist blog that rivals secular outpost for depth of discussion and technical understanding in the articles? That's minus professional peer reviewed publications.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67485965744430753992017-01-26T08:09:55.535-07:002017-01-26T08:09:55.535-07:00Blogger Joe Hinman said...
" you think you a...Blogger Joe Hinman said...<br /><br />" you think you are not in an atheist echo chamber? "<br />Not, for example, here, no, of course not. Why would you even ask?<br /><br />"the vast majority of what i see on the net is an echo chamber."<br />You lack vision in that case. <br /><br /><b>you lack google</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51466106866196215872017-01-26T06:09:08.902-07:002017-01-26T06:09:08.902-07:00Blogger Joe Hinman said...
" you think yo...<br />Blogger Joe Hinman said...<br /><br />" you think you are not in an atheist echo chamber? "<br />Not, for example, here, no, of course not. Why would you even ask?<br /><br />"the vast majority of what i see on the net is an echo chamber."<br />You lack vision in that case. <br /><br /><br /> January 25, 2017 11:21 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72926893508958011512017-01-25T23:21:52.435-07:002017-01-25T23:21:52.435-07:00Faults in my thinking are more likely to be expose...Faults in my thinking are more likely to be exposed in an open marketplace of ideas among those who vigorously contest me, as opposed to an echo chamber of agreement or mere introspection.<br /><br /><b>you think you are not in an atheist echo chamber? the vast majority of what i see on the net is an echo chamber.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73017106301200380392017-01-25T21:50:33.147-07:002017-01-25T21:50:33.147-07:00Victor Reppert said...
" I take it people don...Victor Reppert said...<br />" I take it people don't go on the Internet to argue against religious belief in they don't think this is so. But this means that there are some right answers which in those areas which atheists think theists are likely to miss because they believe in God. Otherwise, ***why do they care?***"<br />I have both selfish and altruistic reasons for engaging those who disagree with me on a variety of subjects, the nature of existence being just one.<br /><br />Selfishly it is a benefit to the clarity and soundness of my reasoned concepts. I simply do have a personal sensibility that I ought to hold opinions that are as close to reality as I am able to discern. <br /><br />Faults in my thinking are more likely to be exposed in an open marketplace of ideas among those who vigorously contest me, as opposed to an echo chamber of agreement or mere introspection.<br /><br />Altruistically I might just give somebody else a bit of insight that person can benefit from in some way.<br /><br /><br /> January 25, 2017 11:36 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3396780445239278712017-01-25T20:07:10.257-07:002017-01-25T20:07:10.257-07:00I have always contended that Atheism is a religion...I have always contended that Atheism is a religion at the Christian Cadre blog. For those interested, see <a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-believe-atheism-is-religion.html" rel="nofollow">Why I believe Atheism is a Religion"</a>.BKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56339079751823766362017-01-25T11:36:17.010-07:002017-01-25T11:36:17.010-07:00OK, let me get to the central point I have been tr...OK, let me get to the central point I have been trying to make here. Is atheism a religion? In one sense, the answer is obviously no, but in exactly that sense theism, the belief in God, is not a religion. It is confused to conflate religion with the belief in God. Why isn't theism a religion? Because in sense of "religion" we are trying to define here, it doesn't fully answer the three questions of what can I know, what must I do, and what can I hope. Now, religions might fail to answer the first one fully, but the second and third they attempt to provide answers. <br /><br />Now, consider the fact that it is possible to be a militant atheist. Not all of them are, but some are, just as some Christians are militant. This is a belief that many people care about. But why? Both theists and atheists have members of their group that are very interested in others believing as they do? It matters to how life is lived. The reason seems to be that religious belief affects how we live our lives and what our hopes should be. If belief in God were simply a neutral question of belief, it would not be supported or oppose militantly. But if affects our life choices and our hopes, and atheists as well as religious believers think, to a greater degree or a lesser degree the wrong answer on God leads to wrong answers in some other areas. I take it people don't go on the Internet to argue against religious belief in they don't think this is so. But this means that there are some right answers which in those areas which atheists think theists are likely to miss because they believe in God. Otherwise, why do they care? Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82864128367931756482017-01-25T08:07:17.207-07:002017-01-25T08:07:17.207-07:00Why adhere to a particular school at all? I find t...Why adhere to a particular school at all? I find that unacceptably constricting. Why should I bear the responsibility of defending the views of others by slapping somebody else's label on myself? No thanks.<br /><br /><b>that's actually what existentialists said.even though they had a label they were anti-systematic.<br /><br />the topic is is atheism a religion? my theory is it's a religion substitute. What's the important thing to note is the way atheism has some of the same tendencies they eschew in religion.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6117832354611189172017-01-25T06:58:18.198-07:002017-01-25T06:58:18.198-07:00David Brightly said...
" The set of wide...David Brightly said...<br /><br /><br />" The set of wider options for atheists is interesting: "<br />Indeed, but your list does not include what I find to be my most suitable option, no school "ist".<br /><br />"Buddhist, existentialist, Marxist, humanist, and objectivist."<br />Why adhere to a particular school at all? I find that unacceptably constricting. Why should I bear the responsibility of defending the views of others by slapping somebody else's label on myself? No thanks.<br /><br />" I'm not a Buddhist because I'm not seeking the kind of transformative enlightenment that Buddhists seek. I'm not an existentialist because I don't think reality is subjective and that there is no advantage in doing the right thing. I'm not a Marxist because I don't accept Marxist historicism and its dreadful consequences. I'm not a secular humanist because I don't want a substitute religion aiming to emancipate individuals from tradition. And I'm not an objectivist because I don't think happiness is the greatest moral goal and I'm not looking for a political party to join."<br />Ok.<br /><br />" Atheism is clearly a broad church."<br />Darn, you jumped off with your last word.<br /><br /><br /> January 24, 2017 3:46 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17697353426546098492017-01-25T02:50:07.266-07:002017-01-25T02:50:07.266-07:00No offence taken, Joe. You are quite right. I me...No offence taken, Joe. You are quite right. I merely skated over Victor's summaries highlighting where I beg to differ. I'm probably trying to indicate that I'm not attracted to systematic 'big ideas' in philosophy. They rely far too much on the frail reed of human rationality, in my view.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88720096973918004672017-01-24T23:15:26.901-07:002017-01-24T23:15:26.901-07:00okmy criticism of J.L.Schellenberg's Hiddennes...ok<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-resisting-non-belief-does-not.html" rel="nofollow"><b>my criticism of J.L.Schellenberg's Hiddenness of God idea</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33918987369127048702017-01-24T22:40:57.097-07:002017-01-24T22:40:57.097-07:00David i don't mean to insult you but i find th...<br /><br />David i don't mean to insult you but i find that survey too glib. you are glossing over serious ideas, at least some serious ideas, you gave existentialism short shrift, That fashionable to knock it but that just put's a gloss on a lot serious development.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74155778140967812742017-01-24T03:46:58.582-07:002017-01-24T03:46:58.582-07:00Thank you, RC. Things fall into place. For me th...Thank you, RC. Things fall into place. For me the question is one for which the answer changes nothing. So I've been speaking prose all my life? Well, that changes everything! But if the question has political and legal ramifications then I can see why it's being constantly asked. <br /><br />The set of wider options for atheists is interesting: Buddhist, existentialist, Marxist, humanist, and objectivist. I'm not a Buddhist because I'm not seeking the kind of transformative enlightenment that Buddhists seek. I'm not an existentialist because I don't think reality is subjective and that there is no advantage in doing the right thing. I'm not a Marxist because I don't accept Marxist historicism and its dreadful consequences. I'm not a secular humanist because I don't want a substitute religion aiming to emancipate individuals from tradition. And I'm not an objectivist because I don't think happiness is the greatest moral goal and I'm not looking for a political party to join. Atheism is clearly a broad church.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57517386167378882362017-01-23T06:02:32.360-07:002017-01-23T06:02:32.360-07:00Does pain and suffering disprove God?
Answering J...Does pain and suffering disprove God?<br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/01/answering-jason-thibodeau-s-theodesy.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Answering Jason Thibodeaus's Theodicy</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-491730018349682772017-01-23T00:04:33.887-07:002017-01-23T00:04:33.887-07:00John Moore said...
I was thinking about fundamenta...John Moore said...<br />I was thinking about fundamental questions such as whether God exists, or what there was before the Big Bang, or what happens to us after we die, or whether miracles really occur. These are questions that seem impossible to answer with merely empirical observations. The atheist can say, "We just don't know such things - and we don't need to know."<br /><br /><b>but they are not. you need to read <i>The Trace of God,</i> by me, to understand that,on amazon</b><br /><br />On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to have a naturalist epistemology (What can we know) and naturalist morality (What must I do). These questions don't depend on any of the fundamental questions just mentioned. Answering the third question (What can I hope) is based on answers to the first two questions.<br /><br /><b>except for the possibility that if there is a big picture you will miss it or contradict with your privatized approach</b><br /><br />There are plenty of other things to hope besides hoping that Christianity is true.<br /><br /><b>sure I can hope my dinner doesn't get cold. all of them pale in comparison to the hope in Christ</b><br /><br />On Metacrock's blog today <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-there-is-no-empirical-proof-that.html" rel="nofollow"><b>why there is no empirical evidence for God</b></a><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51931114591454080182017-01-22T21:01:07.770-07:002017-01-22T21:01:07.770-07:00Here is the problem: We are lacking a succinct wor...Here is the problem: We are lacking a succinct word for a certain idea.<br /><br />Borrowing from the poem Jabberwocky, we could use the term "borogove," and define it thus:<br /><br />"A borogove is an action-prompting or action-limiting worldview, held by an individual, in which some defined opinions about all (or a majority) of five philosophical topics -- (1.) Cosmology (2.) Anthropology (including philosophy of mind) (3.) Ethics (4.) Metaphysics and (5.) Epistemology -- are integrated and combined with (6.) a Solution/Approach to the evils of human experience (e.g. sin, suffering, death, mishap) which is implied by (1.) through (5.), and (7.) cultic practices for reinforcing and propagating the borogove."<br /><br />Now all religions are clearly borogoves.<br /><br />And, clearly, so is modern Western atheism.<br /><br />In the United States we currently have a First Amendment to the Constitution which describes, among others a right intrinsic to human beings: The right to the Free Exercise of religion. And alongside that is a restraint on the power of the state, that Congress shall make no law creating an established religion.<br /><br />But here is the difficulty: Because "religion" is associated in our Judeo-Christian civilization as intrinsically <i>Theistic</i>, the borogove called Atheism is not considered a "religion." But, it is the dominant belief system and cult of Western academics: Anyone who aspires to a certain kind of cultural respectability must be one, or if not, they must practice some watery and domesticated kind of Theistic belief, like liberal Anglicanism.<br /><br />Now any belief system which holds such a role in society is clearly the main threat to become an established religion. But Atheism, by not being acknowledged to be a "religion," gets a free pass: It is established, decisively so in some quarters: There are some jobs which require it in order even to apply. (Just try to get a degree in counseling or a psychotherapy practice while being a serious Christian of the non-leftist variety! And as for tenure in academia...!)<br /><br /><br />Atheism's defenders will say, "Iurs is not an established <i>religion</i>, of course, because it isn't a religion!" They swear up and down that it isn't, because for them, the definition of "religion" is the tendentious one from which Atheism self-excludes. They take this definition perfectly seriously, in spite of them having all of the behavioral hallmarks of the religious. (Ever notice how barnum-bunkum evangelistic the New Atheists were?)<br /><br />So Atheism slipped in under the radar and became established. Buddhism, by not being Theistic, could plausibly cast itself as a philosophy and achieve the same ill-gotten gain, provided it became sufficiently popular among academics and the urbane hip.<br /><br />Now why should free exercise of religion <i>be</i> a Natural Right, anyhow?<br /><br />Well, because the soul-crushing alternatives are awful, as anyone examining the European wars of religion can see.<br /><br />Ah, but there's the catch: Anyone examining those wars can clearly <i>also</i> see that there is nothing specifically <i>Theistic</i> about the kinds of wars and oppressions which occurred. On the contrary, the competing ideologies could have been <i>any kind of borogove</i>.<br /><br />And thus the right which the U.S. Constitution declares so boldly ought not to be construed "Prohibition on Established <i>Religion</i>" in the sense held by Atheists; i.e., the sense which conveniently excludes <i>them</i>.<br /><br />On the contrary, the proper understanding should be that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of <i>borogove</i> ...or whatever better term someone else might coin.<br /><br />Of course, then the Federal Government would have to start denying federal funds to any educational institution which disproportionately rejected traditional Theists for hiring or tenure, lest the government be found to be establishing a borogove.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03679435933685771007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9010477526347784162017-01-22T20:44:53.844-07:002017-01-22T20:44:53.844-07:00I was thinking about fundamental questions such as...I was thinking about fundamental questions such as whether God exists, or what there was before the Big Bang, or what happens to us after we die, or whether miracles really occur. These are questions that seem impossible to answer with merely empirical observations. The atheist can say, "We just don't know such things - and we don't need to know."<br /><br />On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to have a naturalist epistemology (What can we know) and naturalist morality (What must I do). These questions don't depend on any of the fundamental questions just mentioned. Answering the third question (What can I hope) is based on answers to the first two questions.<br /><br />There are plenty of other things to hope besides hoping that Christianity is true.John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62955928236844655232017-01-22T20:09:23.344-07:002017-01-22T20:09:23.344-07:00But the questions are "What can we know,"...But the questions are "What can we know," "What must I do," and "What can I hope?" Atheists invariably say that there are many things that we can know. They are not skeptics in the Pyrrhonian sense. "What must I do" have to do with decisions that have to be made every day regardless of what we know. And "What can I hope" asks whether we can hope that something is true, and live in that hope. I suppose someone who doesn't hold the belief that Christianity is true can nonetheless live in the hope that it is true, but most atheists don't like to go that way. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88565027342923682162017-01-22T16:42:00.598-07:002017-01-22T16:42:00.598-07:00In the text it say of atheism that "Some answ...In the text it say of atheism that "Some answer to the fundamental questions that religions attempt to answer must be put in its place." This is incorrect. It's perfectly possible to admit our ignorance and also to be content with our ignorance about fundamental questions.<br /><br />This contentment with ignorance about fundamental questions is a key aspect of atheism that many theists don't seem to appreciate.<br /><br />John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.com