Aggressive Secularism and Extreme Atheism

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I wonder, nandu, if we need more aggressive anything? That is a pretty big philosophical question.

I know that it would idealistic to hope that we could try to educate ourselves and our wider communities about what the various schools of thought have to say and how it is all related, even the view of the atheist or agnostic is valuable to wider community. Diversity is a great form of strength.

People cast such harsh judgments on atheists and secular humanists because they have the audacity to claim that someone's belief may be wrong. But one thing all those who believe in god agree upon is that there are few things worse than an atheist. In their skewed view, a terrorist has more value because at least they believe in god. Pretty sick, really. If we were only better able to allow people to express their spirituality, in whatever form, rather than imposing beliefs we might be able to get somewhere.

Here in the states, a land that was supposedly built upon individual freedom, a person running as an atheist, or secular humanist, for political office will not win. The top tier of our government essentially consists of 536 people...of which only 1 (I think this is still true as of today) has claimed to be an atheist. The real number? Much higher I would guess (maybe 10% or more?). It seems we prefer to be lied to, rather than operate in the light of day.

This puts the individual in a bad "Aristotelian" ethical position, well illustrated in Plato's "Crito". Being true to the ethic of being honest and truthful can be fatal.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

In the circles I moved in back in India, I was known as a leftist and atheist. And in the eyes of many people, this somehow tainted me-it was as though I was hurting them by my refusal to believe (I do not consider myself atheist, however).

I have not seen a single believer who can admit that atheism is a valid viewpoint to the person who holds it. But many non-believers accept others' beliefs as sacred. This is the difference.

People like Hichens and Dawkins use the believers' strategy against themselves:There is no God, and you had better accept it!

This outrages the faithful:How dare they question my belief like that?

All the while forgetting that this is a taste of their own medicine...

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

I have not seen a single believer who can admit that atheism is a valid viewpoint to the person who holds it. But many non-believers accept others' beliefs as sacred. This is the difference.

People like Hichens and Dawkins use the believers' strategy against themselves:There is no God, and you had better accept it!

This outrages the faithful:How dare they question my belief like that?

All the while forgetting that this is a taste of their own medicine... - Nandu
Couldn't agree more.But somehow Dawkins doesn't seem right even though his actions are justified. The problem is, that it promotes the same in-group mentality as its religious counterpart. Personally I don't wanna trade one fascist for another.

A person's freedom stops where another one's begin so... The irony in this that both sides would claim that it is their freedom that is being threatened when of course this is an illusion. You have enough freedom to practice anything as long as you want it. It is POWER they want. Well... at least we are not burning people at the stake or are we?

I would say I am in favor being open to religions or science that is not suppressive or dogmatic.
So there's still fragmentation.

And there's going to be for a long time. Unfortunately, many of the new mystically motivated movements are reactionary against other peoples. We have this 'Power' and that 'Power' and the other 'Power'. These are delaying actions. People are afraid to move into the free fall of a totally new way of looking at others. (An Open Life, p. 112)
Last edited by Andreas on Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Actually I'm not at all aggressive about my beliefs.

In the matter of faith, the policy should be "live and let live." But even those religious people who tolerate other religions, do not tolerate atheists, as jon pointed out.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius
Associate
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:55 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius »

Andreas wrote:I am not sure what is funnier here.

The fact that secularists obey laws that are written from rich people to support their interests or that we have to take an oath (to a god that none believes anymore) before a trial begins?

I am not sure if that is the progressive, secular or religious society I want to live in.
What a funny and true thought.

On an slightly unrelated note to the above quote. The major problem now isn't religion, its the psuedoscientific climate change (which have banking interests at heart), and the bank robbers of the economy.
http://followingtheherospath.blogspot.com/

"And courage not to submit or yield, and what else is not to overcome?" - Satan, Paradise Lost

lancimouspitt
Associate
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by lancimouspitt »

I find Dawkins an interesting character in that is it possible that while charging a cause against religion even saying on Bill Maurs television show something along the lines “where sick of them and their imaginary friends”, that Dawkins himself is as Jung would probably say “a slave to his own fiction?”

In the God Delusion Dawkins makes note that their probably is god like creatures out in space but we will never know about them. Just as most who champion the cause of Christ certainly have their own personal Jesus' floating about everywhere inside the minds eye it seems to me that Dawkins has his own personal ET somewhere in his. I wouldn't doubt if his own ideas would fall under what he believes alien life might hold as well?.... Just a thought.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Yes, Lance, Dawkins is an interesting character. I like his books, to a point, but as you say he is getting caught up in his own dogma.

I think it was while reading an essay by Vine Deloria Jr. that he described people like Dawkins and Hitchens as "Anti-Theists" rather than atheists. An atheist disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being (eg. god). An "Anti-theist" takes it a step further and is just outright opposed to the very idea of a supreme being and so spends inordinate amounts of time trying to validate a position just as untenable as that of a theist.

I kind of like Deloria's take on it.

From my seat, the "healthiest" place to be is probably agnosticism. Until better information comes along, there is no reason to believe or disbelieve 100%. It's like UFO's and aliens and all that. Just because the universe is huge and that "we are here" does not make a good case for their existence. Until we have good reason, through sense experience, to believe that there are such things, we are probably best to remain agnostic and leave the speculation to lounging on a blanket staring up into the sky on a clear night.

Dawkins probably "wants" there to be alien life because he thinks that would undermine the Abrahamic religious traditions as they have been literally interpreted. But Dawkins is failing to recognize that literalistic misinterpretation does not mean that the deeper message is not a valid metaphor for the human condition. I think he, and the other vocal atheists, feels that he must push back hard to counter a few thousand years of injustice in the name of gods. His fear is that if you leave the door open, armies will march through.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

The quote from the Dalai Lama today addresses this issue.
I know a physicist from Chile who told me that it is not appropriate for a scientist to be biased toward science because of his love and passion for it. I am a Buddhist practitioner and have a lot of faith and respect in the teachings of the Buddha. However, if I mix up my love for for and attachment to Buddhism, then my mind will be biased towards it. A biased mind, which never sees the complete picture, cannot grasp the reality. And any action that results from such a state of mind will not be in tune with reality.
Mmmm...why does this sound so familiar? :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

lancimouspitt
Associate
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by lancimouspitt »

jonsjourney wrote:Yes, Lance, Dawkins is an interesting character. I like his books, to a point, but as you say he is getting caught up in his own dogma.

I think it was while reading an essay by Vine Deloria Jr. that he described people like Dawkins and Hitchens as "Anti-Theists" rather than atheists. An atheist disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being (eg. god). An "Anti-theist" takes it a step further and is just outright opposed to the very idea of a supreme being and so spends inordinate amounts of time trying to validate a position just as untenable as that of a theist.

I kind of like Deloria's take on it.

From my seat, the "healthiest" place to be is probably agnosticism. Until better information comes along, there is no reason to believe or disbelieve 100%. It's like UFO's and aliens and all that. Just because the universe is huge and that "we are here" does not make a good case for their existence. Until we have good reason, through sense experience, to believe that there are such things, we are probably best to remain agnostic and leave the speculation to lounging on a blanket staring up into the sky on a clear night.

Dawkins probably "wants" there to be alien life because he thinks that would undermine the Abrahamic religious traditions as they have been literally interpreted. But Dawkins is failing to recognize that literalistic misinterpretation does not mean that the deeper message is not a valid metaphor for the human condition. I think he, and the other vocal atheists, feels that he must push back hard to counter a few thousand years of injustice in the name of gods. His fear is that if you leave the door open, armies will march through.
Jon I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm going to check out Vine Deloria Jr as well. Sound like a middle voice amongst a lot of shouting. For fun, I wonder what atheist among the likes of Dawkins would think if we ever met alien life that had a balance of science and spirituality to guide them?

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I'm going to check out Vine Deloria Jr as well. -Lance
A few words of caution....Deloria has a big bag full of biases himself. Many people are offended by his unashamed criticism of Western politics and our system/methodology of science and inquiry. I take him with a grain of salt and try to keep it in perspective. Folks in the American Indian community are pretty divided about him too, but most agree he was one of the most important Indigenous thinkers of the 20th Century. That being said, in spite of his issues, he gets to the heart of some pretty significant problems with our systems. In addition, I would put him in the category of a "theist", but I would be cautious about how theist is defined for an American Indian versus someone within an Abrahamic tradition. Oh, and he was no fan of Joseph Campbell. He placed Joe in the same club as anthropologists (Boas, etc) and he had no love for them or their discipline. It was hard to read his criticisms of Campbell without feeling more than just a bit defensive, but when viewed from another angle, I can see why Deloria had issue with folks who tried to explain his culture to him; or worse, romanticize it; or worse still, place his culture as a "step" in the progress of "higher" civil evolution.

If none of that causes you great pause, I would start with The Vine Deloria Jr. Reader.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

lancimouspitt
Associate
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by lancimouspitt »

jonsjourney wrote:
I'm going to check out Vine Deloria Jr as well. -Lance
A few words of caution....Deloria has a big bag full of biases himself. Many people are offended by his unashamed criticism of Western politics and our system/methodology of science and inquiry. I take him with a grain of salt and try to keep it in perspective. Folks in the American Indian community are pretty divided about him too, but most agree he was one of the most important Indigenous thinkers of the 20th Century. That being said, in spite of his issues, he gets to the heart of some pretty significant problems with our systems. In addition, I would put him in the category of a "theist", but I would be cautious about how theist is defined for an American Indian versus someone within an Abrahamic tradition. Oh, and he was no fan of Joseph Campbell. He placed Joe in the same club as anthropologists (Boas, etc) and he had no love for them or their discipline. It was hard to read his criticisms of Campbell without feeling more than just a bit defensive, but when viewed from another angle, I can see why Deloria had issue with folks who tried to explain his culture to him; or worse, romanticize it; or worse still, place his culture as a "step" in the progress of "higher" civil evolution.

If none of that causes you great pause, I would start with The Vine Deloria Jr. Reader.
Thanks for the heads up John. I'm sure I will get a bit defensive since Joe's teachings really hit home for me but I enjoy hearing other sides of the tale as well as sticking to my own. This is a bit off topic but this makes me recall what Brazilian Ju-Jitsu master Rickson Gracie said about training for fights. In an interview he once stated he always thought of the worse possible senario which could be brought upon him during a fight and always trained in the areas he was weak at in case he ever got put their instead of soley focusing on the areas where his technique shined. Basicly he willingly put himself out of the comfort zone in an effort to make himself better. I guess none of us can ever be truley "whole" but I think those who are at least willing to reach at to the other point of view can perhaps be the better for it.

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Just a thought...

The word "theism" and "atheism" have meaning only if you posit a personal God: therefore, they are valid only for traditional believers (or non-believers) in the Abrahamic religions.

Of course, Dawkins says that the "pantheism of the Hindu is monotheism in disguise" or some such nonsense in The God Delusion, and he considers Buddhism as not a religion but a system of philosophy, but these are only feeble attempts to prove that all religions are "equally bad" and the only tenable position is outright rejection of any kind of religious belief. I think Dawkins finds it abominable that somebody can find solace in belief!

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

nandu wrote:Just a thought...

The word "theism" and "atheism" have meaning only if you posit a personal God: therefore, they are valid only for traditional believers (or non-believers) in the Abrahamic religions.

Of course, Dawkins says that the "pantheism of the Hindu is monotheism in disguise" or some such nonsense in The God Delusion, and he considers Buddhism as not a religion but a system of philosophy, but these are only feeble attempts to prove that all religions are "equally bad" and the only tenable position is outright rejection of any kind of religious belief. I think Dawkins finds it abominable that somebody can find solace in belief!

Nandu.
In the common theism - atheism debate
theism is generally used for a belief in a personal or revealed god. Whereas as atheism refers to at least a lack of belief in any "supernatural" god, including deistic gods.
I'm not claiming this is correct, it's just my observation in this great debate.

Of course Dawkins' opinion is just as valid as anyone else's?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Kimberly Weiss
Associate
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:15 pm
Location: St Petersburg, Florida

Post by Kimberly Weiss »

I think it should be remembered that Dawkins is a scientist first and a critic of religion second. His criticism reflects what he's criticising, (in particular the fundamental Abrahamic sects) and is reflecting their views. The problem is that he's only focusing on the fundamentalists in his books, those that take the word of god as literal, not on those who more clearly see it as a mythology, and he's attacking literalism with literalism.

As a scientist, he's right. The probability of any god actually existing in reality as depicted in any religious text is so improbable as to be impossible. If you look at the matter of religion from a purely biological point of view, as Dawkins is, then the answer that all religions are psychological not physical, is obvious.

On the other hand, fundamentalists look at the tenets of Darwin and the scientific community in general as temptations of the devil. It warns in the bible to always keep god foremost in the mind and don't go creating golden calfs. To a person reading the bible literally the discoveries in science that are contrary to the bible are just as obviously false.

It's clear that neither of these people are ever going to be able to see from the other's point of view as long as they go into the debate with the idea that the religious texts are to be read literally and therefore criticsized as literal. It's as Joseph Campbell said in Myths to Live By "As a result, we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies."

On the same note, both sides feel persecuted. Atheists, as noted above, because even in religiously tolerant societies there's little room for those that don't have any religion at all, and fundamentalists who seriously believe that the entire society is being poisoned by secularism and their ways being demolished. Both have legitimate complaints against the other. Though, being an atheist myself, I'm slightly more biased to the atheist side and to Dawkins in particular since he was a friend of my favorite author, Douglas Adams. :D

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I love the fact that there seems to be a fairly common appreciation of Douglas Adams with folks who migrate here. :D

...of course, I am biased!

Everyone here has raised valid points....and we are all talking aren't we? So we know that at least there are some folks out there who can attempt to respect a pluralism of views. Some here may see the belief in a personal god as being ridiculous, others not. Some may see atheism or agnosticism as the best place to "stand", others not so much. Some see belief as a problem, others see it as a source of comfort and meaning. If Campbell was encouraging anything, it was an effort to try to understand each other better without allowing the differences to become the focus, which usually leads to direct conflict.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Locked