I'm not a religious person. The only time I ever go to a church is when I'm obliged by social convention to attend a baptism, funeral, or wedding. I feel a bit like a wolf in sheep's skin when I go, and fight the urge, often unsuccessfully, to answer with silly or snide comments when asked as part of the audience if I accept Jesus into my heart, or if I reject Satan and sin. (As an aside, I consider it the mark of an enlightened being to accept all parts of oneself, even the parts that are considered immoral. Of which I have none, of course, but you know, hypothetically.)
I think Mano Singham's excellent Scientific Proof of God's Non-Existence is the most compelling argument I've ever read against the existence of a God - the God, at least, of major religions as the prime creative force standing somehow outside of the universe, His creation, making his presence felt everywhere in the hearts of the faithful but not, unfortunately, in the realm of the physical.
It is on the basis of such rejection that people call themselves atheists. Although technically I am an atheist for that reason, I've never been comfortable with that label. And I'll tell you why without merely giving the wishy-washy cliche "well I think there must be something out there."
The problem with atheism, as I see it, is that it's too comfortable. Great, we've dealt with the God problem, and that's that. What's for dinner? Atheism functions for many in the same way religion does: as an easy answer to life's big questions. Religion casts you in a particular role in the greater drama of Good versus Evil, whereas atheism says simply, there is no drama. You're an accident. A wonderful accident, as my parents explained to me (although now that I think about it, they might have been talking about something else).
Well, maybe. But is the case really closed? Is it really a such an easy dichotomy, God on one hand, and nothing on the other? Having absorbed some Taoism and Buddhism, not to mention some ayajuasca (a story for another day), I have an alternative point of view. The basis of my spirituality, such as it is, lies in an exaltation of the Mystery of it all.
Experientially, this manifests as awe or wonder, when looking up at the stars, or the Grand Canyon, or some other marvel that highlights the immensity of the world. Also, as wonder at the fact that the machine called me is experiencing wonder at the fact that the machine called me is experiencing wonder (and so on). This awe is a rewarding and useful feeling. It helps us to see our place in the world, as simultaneously a center of consciousness and as just a tiny speck in a seemingly infinite universe. It provides a feeling of connection with the world, as its center. Have you ever had the realization, while looking at a night sky, that the light from all those stars has arrived at your eyes simultaneously from such great distances?
Intellectually, it manifests (for me, anyway) in the philosophy of radical constructivism - the set of ideas that: experience is primary; everything in our experience is a construction (not a representation); and that all we know is our constructions. The experience we create in every moment may not have anything at all to do with "reality", but that evolution has selected us in such a way that the constructions we end up making prove advantageous to our survival and propagation. In other words, even our solid world of experience is an illusion, and the so-called Reality behind it, an utter mystery.
(Radical Constructivism, by the way, is the only philosophy that provides the necessary framework to support Strong AI, or the idea that intelligence and free will can arise in and of themselves in the right kind of emergent context. All other philosophies that rely on some sort of representational epistemology - i.e. what we experience directly represents the world out there - have serious flaws if used as part of an explanation of artificial intelligence. Likewise for artificial life.)
Radical Constructivism imparts the notion that a belief in an objective reality is also an act of faith. It's certainly reasonable to believe in an objective reality, and indeed doing so has been enormously successful as a strategy. Science obviously would be impossible without at least a "working" model of objective reality (as in, we do science "as if" there were an objective reality - this is how RC reconciles itself with science). But at the end of the day, our world of particles and waves is just a construction, one that becomes incoherent at the extremes of our experience (as any quantum theorist will tell you).
If we atheists are correct to dismantle religious faith, it's a simple act of consistency to turn that skepticism on ourselves. It's a "lie of omission" not to do so, in fact. What we are left with once we do so is the mystery of our existence, reality, and our selves. Isn't it beautiful?
Great Article!
I especially like "Atheism functions for many in the same way religion does: as an easy answer to life's big questions." and "If we atheists are correct to dismantle religious faith, it's a simple act of consistency to turn that skepticism on ourselves. It's a "lie of omission" not to do so, in fact. What we are left with once we do so is the mystery of our existence, reality, and our selves. Isn't it beautiful?"
Farewell to the wrath of the absolute...
At first sight it seems strange that scientific thinking and probing, if applied on the thinking process of the scientist himself, leads to insecurity and the acceptance that there is no direct connection between reality (whatever that may be) and our perception. All the senses we trust in seem to be model-building , pattern recognizing agencies that don't even store the raw data. The more I read about brain structures and sensory processing, or the process of thinking itself, the more I wonder that anything like a close approximation to reality is achieved...
Oops, there goes the absolute trust in my senses, the absolute trust in my thought processes. At first sight it's an awkward situation: No absolutes! Nothing to start from. Just models and stuff that may be changed without prior notice, if evidence necessitates...
On second thought, this accounts for every human brain on the planet.
So whoever claims absolute truth is not aware of that fact, is pretending a sincerity that is technically impossible. In literature and philosophy the absolute (or "truth") may be an interesting theoretical topic, a concept many desire, but it has no root in "reality", and even if it had, we'd not be able to perceive it....
Now the only problem of atheists is that they have to accept any sound scientific finding, even those about thinking processes. They can't lean back comfortably saying "No, I don't believe that biological fuss, I prefer to believe in what God said".
Which leaves a wide range of scripture: the Tanakh and Talmud, the Old and New Testament (in 450 different interpretations), the Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool, the Kitab i-Aqdas and Iqan, the Bon Kangyur and Tengyur, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Analects, al-Qur'an and Hadith, the book of Mormon, the Tipikata, the Tripikata, the Gospel of Marcion, the Principia Discordia, The Book of the Dead, the Svetambara, the Digambara, the Ginza Rba, the Arzhang, the holy Piby, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Satanic Bible, Dianetics, the Kojiki and Nihongi, the Daozang, Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi, the holy books of Thelema, the Avestas, or Dasven Padshah Da Granth.
Just to name a few, none compatible with any of the others.
All full of absolute sincerity, absolute good & bad, a real holiday for all our pattern-seeking brain. And all claim the technically impossible: truth in reality...
I, personally, prefer my insincerity. But I can still spot a false claim.
Applause
Wonderful and though-provoking post, terren. Thanks for making a call for consistency of approach.
I also appreciate the question -- humorously put -- about what happens to atheism once someone has dispensed with the idea of a God. What's for dinner, indeed.
The goal of religion is explicit in the word -- to bind together. At least, according to the various scriptures. The purpose of the revelations of the Avatars whose teachings we still have was to inculcate in humanity a sense of familiarity (in the root sense of the word to be part of a family) and to direct human beings towards thoughts of love for each other and detachment from the things that caused sometimes disastrous attachment and competition.
One might ask, then, what is the goal of atheism in a larger sense? What is its role in the world of humanity?
I've read Sam Harris expound the idea that it should somehow result in a new, modern ethic. Mr. Harris has his own ideas about where this ethic should be drawn from. But is that really on the atheist agenda? And is there anything in atheism as a philosophy that lends itself to transforming human hearts and human lives, thereby transforming our world?
I have heard some atheist philosophers discuss how to replace what they see as the essential function of religion -- to confer awe and comfort and explain our beginnings. But I've yet to see a discussion of how they propose to replace what I, as a member of a religion, reallly see as the function of religion -- the transformation of individuals and societies. In this age, that transformation, IMO, needs to result in a coherent global community, diverse in its parts, but unified in its goals.
"none compatible with any of the others"
I've read quite a few of the texts on Mycroft's "none compatible" list and found them to be quite compatible in their essentials. Those essentials being the nature of God and our relationship with Him and with each other. The goal of our existence, the virtues of the human spirit.
The social teachings and anything else that are culturally related are bound to change from age to age. I mean, really, does it makes sense that we'd evolve and religion would remain static? That we'd grow to adulthood and God would continue to speak to us as if we were children?
Christ, in fact, makes that point when He's asked why He's changing the Mosaic laws of divorce. "Moses gave you these laws because your hearts were hard, but from the beginning it was not so." We change and grow. Our instruction set changes, setting higher expectations.
Put another way, does it make sense to judge, say a 5,000 year old faith by 21st century standards?
And then, of course, we change the instruction set further when it no longer seems to suit our needs or doesn't feed our vanities, perhaps.
incompatibility...
Kaath-
If you look at religions from the outside in search of wisdom and beauty, you will find a lot of both. And of course, you can't ignore the fact that they all are about the same thing, more or less. As a Ba'hai, you don't have a problem to regard all religion-founders as avatars of one god.
But from the inside, seen from the perspective of a believer in exactly one of the many holy books, things are different. For the believer, you are reducing the status of god from the one and only to one with many different sides, and the status of the last prophet to "just another avatar". To the devout believer that is pure blasphemy. "We're the only believers, the others are heathen, destined to go to hell". Ask a Pentecostal, a Catholic, a Muslim, a Jew... and a Hindutva and many Buddhists will say that those unbelievers will never make it into respectable wombs. I mean, that is the reality of religious practice on this planet.
For job reasons I've lived in a lot of societies, India, Thailand and Pakistan, just to name a few. Each of the three is dominated by one religion: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam. My acquaintances in these countries, although usually well-educated and polite persons, were all in horror of the unbelievers who adhere to strange cults. Meaning each other and, of course, the Christians, depending on where I was. Same thing in West Germany where I grew up in a Catholic family. To my father, even Lutherans were unacceptable, almost heathen.
I'm afraid you underestimate the in-group feeling inside a religious community, and its perimeter defenses against other religions.
The only time they seem willing to co-operate is when they're atheist-bashing.
Faith from the inside
MycroftH wrote: "As a Ba'hai, you don't have a problem to regard all religion-founders as avatars of one god. But from the inside, seen from the perspective of a believer in exactly one of the many holy books, things are different."
I can only chuckle. I wasn't a Baha'i my whole life, my dear Holmes. I was a born-again, Bible-believing Christian until I was 18. I had, happily, been raised in a number of different denominations so I understood how differences could evolve from the same source. I also had a mother who told me emphatically, "Never question the authority of God, but ALWAYS question the authority of men. If you hear a doctrine that you cannot verify from the scripture, ask the minister where he got it. If he can't answer to your satisfaction, find another church."
Because of this, I've been a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Congregationalist and unaffiliated.
I also had some formative experiences that alerted me to the great disparity in Christian belief. I watched as my mother was accused by two Catholic moms of leading their daughters to sin by holding our Girl Scout meeting in the basement of our Presbyterian church. My best friend at the time, a Catholic, prayed to a plastic Mary and cheerfully told me I was going to hell because I was a Protestant.
I know very well what it looks like from inside a major religion. I know what it's like to hold the idea that Jesus' three year mission was the whole enchilada—that God will not speak to us again. And I understand how terrifying it is to have that challenged. But I also know it's possible to step back and view those beliefs rationally and, with a thorough reading of scripture and history, to realize that they are neither scriptural nor reasonable.
Do you know what my reaction to the Baha'i Faith was? I was furious. Outraged. Insulted. It took me a time of careful study to realize that I was not being asked to dump Christ or what He taught. I was being asked to really practice what He taught and to understand that, of course, God had spoken before and since. It was illogical to assume that He had not.
I have Baha'i friends who are from Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, Evangelical Christian, Wiccan, Hindu, Native American and other religious backgrounds. My husband and best friend were both atheists who became Baha'is.
Perhaps you underestimate the power of a religion to transform people and draw them together.
the facts of life
Thanks for the thoughts MycroftH... my personal favorite of the impressive list you outlined is the Principia Discordia. :-]
It does bear mentioning though that even if there are no absolutes, that doesn't mean there is "nothing to start from". Our evolutionary heritage is where we start from. We've evolved in physical, psychological, and cultural ways. So without getting into universal absolutism, it is a fact e.g. that we are wired for sex - if we weren't, we probably wouldn't be here to have this discussion! In some sense, the animal need for sex is about as close to an absolute as it gets. It's the "facts of life" that anchor us all in a common (if not objective) reality. I think Mrs. Garrett would agree.
Also - this may be nitpicking - but when you say Now the only problem of atheists is that they have to accept any sound scientific finding, even those about thinking processes - I have to disagree since there is always room for skepticism about even sound, rational claims. The evidence for any claim is never 100% reliable, for any number of reasons - flawed interpretation of the data, flawed experimental procedure, small sample size, and any number of logical fallacies involved in crafting and defending hypotheses. The history of science is the constant upheaval of universally held rational beliefs.
goals of atheism & faith
Hi Kaath, thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply.
I believe, as I suspect you do, that atheism is largely a response to the kind of dogmatic rejection of reason and intellectualism that spreads like a virus from the pulpits of fundamentalist churches of every kind of faith. Thought experiment: if there were no fundamentalism, would atheism exist?
So the goal of atheism then, as I see it, is to reinforce the idea that reason and rationality are far better for humanity at large than dogmatism; and to weaken by any means necessary the authority that religious folks claim on behalf of their supernatural daddy.
I lend my strong support to both of those goals even if I don't self-identify as an atheist. The quality of life, on average, by any measure, has steadily risen since the idea that truth can be tested was put to the test roughly 400 years ago. And the idea that any religious leader has any authority over me whatsoever is patently absurd to me - and I thank my lucky stars that I was born in a time and place where I can say that and not get burned at the stake.
However, religion is about more than dogma and authority, as you rightly point out. The transformative aspect of faith is pretty much completely overlooked or dismissed by atheism at large. It seems clear to me that the teachings of various religious prophets throughout history have the power to help people in profound ways - but only if approached with the capacity for thought and self-reflection, not simply mindless obedience. Enlightenment is real.
So whatever religions are out there that encourage thoughtfulness, questioning, and self-reflection are ok by me. Especially if its practitioners aren't afraid to laugh at themselves. Not too many religions fit that description, though.
For me the guiding principle is: if you have easy answers to the tough questions, you're probably doing it wrong - and that applies whether you're religious or an atheist.
Warms the cockles of my heart
terren wrote: "So the goal of atheism then, as I see it, is to reinforce the idea that reason and rationality are far better for humanity at large than dogmatism; and to weaken by any means necessary the authority that religious folks claim on behalf of their supernatural daddy."
We seem to be on the same page. One of the goals of the Baha'i Faith is exactly that. The goal of the goal, if you will, is the unification and edification of mankind as a whole.
You wrote: "It seems clear to me that the teachings of various religious prophets throughout history have the power to help people in profound ways - but only if approached with the capacity for thought and self-reflection, not simply mindless obedience. Enlightenment is real."
Amen to that. The Baha'i sacred writings state this as the first principle of the teachings: "We should, therefore, detach ourselves from the external forms and practices of religion. We must realize that these forms and practices, however beautiful, are but garments clothing the warm heart and the living limbs of Divine truth. We must abandon the prejudices of tradition if we would succeed in finding the truth at the core of all religions. ...In order to find truth we must give up our prejudices, our own small trivial notions; an open receptive mind is essential. If our chalice is full of self, there is no room in it for the water of life. The fact that we imagine ourselves to be right and everybody else wrong is the greatest of all obstacles in the path towards unity, and unity is necessary if we would reach truth, for truth is one. ...Unless we make a distinction in our minds between dogma, superstition and prejudice on the one hand, and truth on the other, we cannot succeed. When we are in earnest in our search for anything we look for it everywhere. This principle we must carry out in our search for truth. Science must be accepted. No one truth can contradict another truth. Light is good in whatsoever lamp it is burning! A rose is beautiful in whatsoever garden it may bloom! A star has the same radiance if it shines from the East or from the West. Be free from prejudice, so will you love the Sun of Truth from whatsoever point in the horizon it may arise! ...It means, also, that we must be willing to clear away all that we have previously learned, all that would clog our steps on the way to truth; we must not shrink if necessary from beginning our education all over again. We must not allow our love for any one religion or any one personality to so blind our eyes that we become fettered by superstition! When we are freed from all these bonds, seeking with liberated minds, then shall we be able to arrive at our goal."