Godless Apostate

[Textcritic]

This has been an interesting discussion that I am sorry I missed (as usual). I did want to pick up on something that was said a few pages earlier.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Pretty sure we're just going with the default God here, given our location...

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

There is no default God.
There are multiple understandings of God, and different views of the attribute of said God, but there is no such thing as "default God," so if you plan on speaking about God, then you're biting more than you can chew...

Of course, Chill Cosby is right here, but it raises an interesting point that I had not thought much about since before now, and that is the counter idea of a "default" form of atheism. Generally speaking, atheism defines itself by the absence of a belief in any god or supernatural being, but what is often overlooked is that this declaration has been formed from a thoroughly Western concept of such things as "god" or "supernature." I think most atheists would agree that their ideas are formed from a strong commitment to rationalism (correct me if I am wrong here), but even what we consider to be modern rational discourse has emerged from a thoroughly, unavoidably Western religious, "JudeoChristian" outlook. So then, it is natural that modern atheism with which we are most familiar are responses to concepts about god and supernature that have emerged out of Western religion. "Western religion" itself is a rather artificial enterprise that emerged from ancient religious practice into a type of cognition or conceptualisation of ritual and performance.

This makes me wonder especially in light of some of terminator's complaints: are there, or will there be other forms of atheism that respond more specifically to "Eastern"—what I would consider more ancient and conservative expressions of "god" and "supernature"?

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Again, if you're taking on a religion, you'll have a much easier time, but I've rarely seen an atheist argue against God itself with any sense of clarity or proper understanding.

Similar to my first point, atheistic responses, critiques, and rejections of religion are quite specific to the modernised Western concept of religion, and as such are structured with particular sets of definitions in place which are not universal to all forms of what we now consider to be "religion." Hell, I would argue that the modern concept of "religion" itself is also a modernised Western idea that does not really align with what historical or universal "religion" actually is. The problem occurs because the study of "religion" has sought primarily to extract certain ideas from a complex matrix of cultural and social rituals, myths, self-conceptions, and anthropological behaviours. The modernised Western concept of religion is inextricably tied to the horribly simplistic notion of "worldview" that seeks to reduce cultural nuances to a set of premises and doctrines.

So, I am curious to see or know if there is such a thing as a non-Westernised form of atheism in the first place, and in the second to know how it counters religion from within its own religiously cultivated perspective. I might at the outset think that perhaps some forms of Buddhism (mindfulness?) or Chinese philosophies founded on Confuciun thinking might qualify, which is interesting, because I also suspect that these would be universally rejected by modernised Western (Judeo-Christianised?) atheists also as "religion."

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Here's a very quick and dirty explanation of the three major Western monotheistic religions...

You're not necessarily wrong, but I thought that your "very quick and dirty explanation" provided a good illustration of what I am getting at.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Judaism came first. Their holy book, the Torah, consists of the first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) of what Christians know as the Old Testament of the Bible. They believe in a monotheistic God (referred to as "Yahweh" in Hebrew), and important figures in Jewish mythology are characters you probably recognize from Bible stories like Jacob, Isiah, Moses, etc.

So, you are right that Judaism is the parent "religion" of the three monotheistic faiths, but your presentation of it is precisely what one would expect from a modernised Western perspective of "religion" in the first place. One of the fundamental flaws in your depiction is of Judaism as a textualised cultural entity with virtually no mention of the real heart of Judaism in temple ritual and performance. It is easy to miss because this is effectively a religion that is now extinct, but a careful reading of ALL Jewish literature presupposes the centrality of the Jerusalem temple cult.

Second, the Jewish commitment to "monotheism" is also much more nuanced than simple ascent to the exclusivity of "Yahweh." Judaism emerged from Canaanite cultural ritual with heavy influences from Mesopotamian, Babylonian and Greco-Roman ideas and practises. Even until the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 67 c.e.—which effectively ended formative "Judaism"—it is not entirely clear to what extent Jews considered themselves "monotheistic."

Third, (and this emerges somewhat from my second point), the Jewish idea of a "holy book" and its precise contents were NOT settled. These are later textualised ideas about what formative Jews meant when they made references to their own "scriptures" (which on its own merely means "ancient writings"), and furthermore about what role these even played in the culture. Scripture was undeniably important, but there are many points at which it appears to have had more of a divinatory function than a doctrinal one.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Christianity came second. Christians are essentially Jews who believe that Jesus Christ (himself a Jew) is the son of God and that he died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. Jesus is considered an important prophet in Judaism, but they do not believe he is the messiah. The Christian holy book, the Bible, includes the five books of the Torah in addition to the New Testament which mostly deals with the life and teachings of Jesus. The God of both the Jewish and Christian faiths is one and the same.

First, it is important to note that from a scholarly perspective what we now consider "Judaism" and "Christianity" are parallel developments from the SAME ancient, formative Judaism I described above, but they are both contemporaries, and quite different from formative Judaism in many respects. I would suggest that Christianity is probably the first "religion" from a modernised Western perspective, in that it is the first to set high importance on cognitive ascent over ritualised performance, and it is also the first to extract belief as a self-identifying feature from other elements of "ethnicity." Modern "rabbinic" Judaism could be considered a response to Christianity. The disappearance of temple ritual as well as the intent to counter emerging Christianity helps to explain why Judaism itself became progressively more conceptual, although it has also striven to retain some semblance of cultural and performative distinction.

Second, Jesus IS NOT considered anyone of any importance from within modern Judaism.

Third, while I would agree that the "god" at the heart of both Christian and Jewish faiths is essentially the same, it is also important to note that Christianity—while formatively Jewish—very quickly became a Roman religion, and in essence, Roman perspective about the gods permeated Christian beliefs, but also affected their own conceptualisations of early rabbinic Judaism. Why is this important? Because a good deal of what we know about rabbinic Judaism is dependent upon Christian source material.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Islam came third. The prophet Mohammad is the most influential and important figure to Muslims, but the God of Islam (referred to as "Allah" in Arabic) is also the exact same being as the god worshiped by Christians and Jews. The holy book of Islam, the Quran, also includes many of the same characters from the Torah and the Bible such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon, Jesus, etc.

I know hardly anything about Islam, so I cannot really comment, but I will make the following small points. First, "allah" is not a name, it is just the Arabic word that we translate into "god" in English. Second, Islam indeed developed from out of Christianity, but it is equally important to note that it was just as heavily influenced by earlier forms of Arabian mythology. It might be accurate to say that Islam is also a "Westernisation" of ancient tribal "religions" that set a much greater emphasis on concepts over ritual.

So, my point in all of this is—as simply as I can state it—to illustrate how our concepts about "religion" are completely beholden to the modernised Western development of "religion." The reason you can say Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all feature the same god, is because these three religions all emerged together or from one another with a new and different expression of religion as a conceptual enterprise apart from its symbiotic connection to culture and society. What that means is that we invariably evaluate what we perceive to be religion from this very narrow perspective, and I would argue quite inappropriately so.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Agreed. A belief system does not concern itself with faith, it CAN be religious in nature, but it can also be philosophical, or concerned simply with ideas. It's a set of beliefs followed by a community. Denying that Atheism is a belief system just sounds like "Belief? That's icky!" To me.

I think the same can be said of both. If God came down and proved his existence, wouldn't most people, regardless of Atheism or Agonisticism or religions where God wasn't a factor, believe then in God? In much the same, if Science ultimately showed that God was an impossibility by giving un-refutable proof, don't you think those who believe in him who cease?

Both are likely impossible, and certainly won't happen in out lifetime, but things change. Only once God himself appears in an undeniable way, or all that is unknown to us becomes known, will one side cease to have reason for being.

I don't know if I care for the idea that Atheists would believe in God if there was proof of God, because I think the same could be said about Christians if there was proof of no-God.

I disagree with your assertion that Atheism is a "belief system". I agree that atheists "believe" there is no god, but that doesn't make it a "belief system" any more than believing that "blue is a cool color" is a belief system.

Religions are belief systems because they are a set of core beliefs that influence further beliefs. For example, many people think homosexuality is a sin because of their religious belief system. While this view about homosexuality is a belief, I don't think you could call it a "belief system".

Not believing in a god is a "belief" that comes from a "belief system" that holds the core belief that you shouldn't take things on faith without some imperical evidence to back it up. Not believing in a god does not have an overriding influence on your life in anyway near the same way that believing in a god seems to have. I contend that very few (if any) atheists let the writings of Russell, Higgins, Dawkins, etc. influence their lives in the same way that a great number of religios people do with the bible.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, I am curious to see or know if there is such a thing as a non-Westernised form of atheism in the first place, and in the second to know how it counters religion from within its own religiously cultivated perspective. I might at the outset think that perhaps some forms of Buddhism (mindfulness?) or Chinese philosophies founded on Confuciun thinking might qualify, which is interesting, because I also suspect that these would be universally rejected by modernised Western (Judeo-Christianised?) atheists also as "religion."

Sam Harris is a big fan of meditation and the idea that spirituality is a state of mind that does not require a supernatural belief. It helps he's so well spoken and a neuroscientist.

I think the answer is that we fight the battles that need to be fought and its all about location, the Abrahamic religions dominate our political and social discussions, legislation's, etc.. So ultimately the noise is all from this, but I do know of plenty of groups in Asia, humanists, skeptics, atheist groups which are doing what you see happening here in the western world, we just do not hear from them back here unless you are like me who is very actively involved in the humanist movement.

More to the point, its the actions that we are most often at odds with of the religious that fuels the non believers to fight back, and of course we are not exactly flooded with Buddhists causing problems out here.

Ultimately though, my cursory understanding of eastern religions give me no more pause as to them having any more validity than the Abrahamic, in some sense they are seemingly less harmful but that might be more to do with not being from those countries more than anything.

At the root of it like in India example religious belief there lends itself to its populace being very gullible and gives rise to all kinds of ridiculous people that have big following claiming nonsense like they don't eat, one guy claiming he never ejaculates and that he cannot, these people are a plague because I think that once you believe in magical thinking it opens up people to much more nonsense which can often be harmful, ie the witch hunters in Africa.

Which is probably why I'm so drawn to the Humanist and skeptic movements more so than I am with atheist movements. David Silverman asked if we wanted to have him come speak on his last trip to London but our board said no since Iceland really doesn't need an atheist movement, our goals are very different from the US and firebrand atheism is just something that would not attract a lot of interest here.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Thor

Sam Harris is a big fan of meditation and the idea that spirituality is a state of mind that does not require a supernatural belief. It helps he's so well spoken and a neuroscientist.

I think the answer is that we fight the battles that need to be fought and its all about location, the Abrahamic religions dominate our political and social discussions, legislation's, etc...

I would like to think that I am doing the same thing from the inside. I still consider myself a theist (I think), and am progressively convinced that the end of the religious question is ultimately not in the end of religion, but in its reformation. For me, a fundamental part of that would potentially occur through a radical reconceptualisation of "religion" that is more in line with its ancient expression as an inextricable component of culture and society. What this means is that everyone could be "religious" regardless about whatever she or he believes or feels about the existence of a "god" (or "gods"). Since religion from the beginning of human civilisation was always behavioural and performative and NOT conceptual, then I think there is room for any number of ritualisations within our culture and social worlds that provide expression to our own humanity and our place in the world and the universe.

Originally Posted by Thor

So ultimately the noise is all from this, but I do know of plenty of groups in Asia, humanists, skeptics, atheist groups which are doing what you see happening here in the western world, we just do not hear from them back here unless you are like me who is very actively involved in the humanist movement.

But I expect that these Asian groups are all very likely what I have classified as "modernised Western" conceptual rationalists. Of course they reject Eastern "religions" because they have defined and compartmentalised them according to artificial precepts of what constitutes "religion" as primarily a system of beliefs.

In many ways this is a consequence of globalisation. More and more Western modernity and its ideals and goals become more deeply engrained on the rest of the world, and I am not entirely convinced that this is a good thing. The closer we become through the explosion of information and connectivity, the more alike we become to the extent that cultural and social distinctions that ought to be celebrated are threatened with extinction.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would like to think that I am doing the same thing from the inside. I still consider myself a theist (I think), and am progressively convinced that the end of the religious question is ultimately not in the end of religion, but in its reformation. For me, a fundamental part of that would potentially occur through a radical reconceptualisation of "religion" that is more in line with its ancient expression as an inextricable component of culture and society. What this means is that everyone could be "religious" regardless about whatever she or he believes or feels about the existence of a "god" (or "gods"). Since religion from the beginning of human civilisation was always behavioural and performative and NOT conceptual, then I think there is room for any number of ritualisations within our culture and social worlds that provide expression to our own humanity and our place in the world and the universe.

As you know I am a fan of this, its needed and necessary but I think the problem will lie in the failings of humans to get past tribalism and the need to see others unlike them as the problem. There is a powerful need and worth to tradition, ceremony and this feeling of community that organized religion brings, but unfortunately up until now the vast majority of religions have failed an any kind of internal enlightenment among its followers which remain in most instances incredibly uninformed about their core beliefs and are easy to sway and influence, which is why organized religion has been such a powerful tool for influence and control.

But I expect that these Asian groups are all very likely what I have classified as "modernised Western" conceptual rationalists. Of course they reject Eastern "religions" because they have defined and compartmentalised them according to artificial precepts of what constitutes "religion" as primarily a system of beliefs.

I think eastern religions are more akin to what we see with people like Deepak Chopra who peddle this new age feel good, undefined spirituality which is filled with metaphors and hyperbole. The problem in the east is that while a rigid biblical type belief is not common, the unskeptical way most of these societies operate is of grave concern to me. No need look further than China which is incredibly superstitious and filled with nonsense beliefs in numbers, animal powders and the like.

In many ways this is a consequence of globalisation. More and more Western modernity and its ideals and goals become more deeply engrained on the rest of the world, and I am not entirely convinced that this is a good thing. The closer we become through the explosion of information and connectivity, the more alike we become to the extent that cultural and social distinctions that ought to be celebrated are threatened with extinction.

So true, globalization is still quite a young thing, I do believe ultimately as we move forward to a more global way of thinking, less about nation states, less about specific religious ideologies this can only be a good thing overall.

The problem has been westernization of the 2nd and 3rd world brings with it the pitfalls of mixing modernity with people's that belong to cultures from 100's of years ago, just look at Africa with its witch problem, the idea that condoms are a conspiracy by the west, the idea that Eboli is a lie from the west and the consequences are dire.

We all evolve as societies at a different pace, this is a major problem, since the only real solution is education, secularism, and democracy. Which is why the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is exactly what we need more of, because this vast gulf between the 1st world and everyone else is a large bridge to gap and so far in many instances its been a disaster.

[Thor]

[Chill Cosby]

Don't really care for the source organization, but an interesting and well written article regardless concerning Atheism as a belief system (worth reading even if it's not 100% agreeable):
http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-...-belief-system

[Thor]

You just linked a religious group....

[photon]

Kind of dumb..

To which I reply: “So you’re now saying that atheism is the lack of belief in God by a creature that has the ability to form beliefs?” This is a different claim entirely—indeed, it’s a positive claim. The atheist is now claiming to believe that the external world really exists (thus she is rejecting metaphysical idealism), that other minds exist, that the human mind can form beliefs, and that our cognitive faculties are broadly reliable.[3] Each of those is a hotly debated area in philosophy.

Well yes, that's true of anyone claiming belief or lack of belief in anything at all. Not believing in Santa Clause also is a positive claim by this criteria.

Just because a lack of belief depends on some axioms being true (like the world really existing) doesn't make it a positive claim, it's just a claim within a given set of axioms.

atheist’s job to give evidence for each of the philosophical positions they are encamped on

No it isn't, just like it's not the atheists job to give evidence for gravity every time they tell their friend that if they jump off a bridge they'll fall.

The author then goes on to attempt victory by re-definition of the word, tries to draw false equivalences between the social importance of God and the tooth fairy, and even claims that human rights are based on a Judeo-Christian value, using that in an appeal to consequences. Makes up some imaginary principles (beliefs attract beliefs like gravity) and confuses cause and effect for an atheist's beliefs. And finally misinterprets social behaviour as evidence of belief.

The whole thing is a pretty terrible effort from a PhD. Reads like he started with his belief and worked backwards to find things that support it.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Thor

You just linked a religious group....

What's your point?
That someone who believes the opposite of what you do can't form solid opinions on what it is you believe? Should we disregard all Atheist opinions of religion?

I just thought it was a decent read. Good at the analysis of a few things, but a bit preachy.

EDIT: Different link concerning the same idea, as proposed by an Atheist:
http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008...belief-system/

I do agree with the idea that Atheists are making a positive claim, and that it is a belief system based on the fact that it is a central belief (god doesn't exist) that informs many other beliefs and partially informs the way you live your life.

[Thor]

Do you consider you are holding onto this opinion even against overwhelming evidence against it?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

the fact that it is a central belief (god doesn't exist)

Incorrect facts create incorrect conclusions, as do assumptions.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Thor

Do you consider you are holding onto this opinion even against overwhelming evidence against it?

Again, wasn't sure of the point to your last post and I'm not sure what you're getting at with this post. What evidence? Have I missed crucial evidence regarding Atheism as a belief system? As far as I'm aware, based on the scholarly definition of both Atheism and what a belief system is, it checks off all the important boxes (you believe something to be true, a collective community follows said belief, and that belief informs lifestyle and other beliefs).

Perhaps it's less like I DONT believe that Atheism isn't a belief system, but more that I simply LACK belief that it isn't a belief system

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...The whole thing is a pretty terrible effort from a PhD. Reads like he started with his belief and worked backwards to find things that support it.

This is exactly what he did. Ravi Zacharius is a persuasive speaker and a passionate pseudo-intellectual who is able to translate these attributes into a visage of academic expertise. The truth is, he is not a PhD, and in actual fact possesses only what I would consider to be a minimal level of university calibre training. His undergraduate degree was awarded by an evangelical Bible college, and his graduate degree is an M.Div. from an evangelical seminary. The problem here is not the fact that these are religious degrees awarded by religious institutions, nor even that they are theologically and socially conservative evangelical institutions. The problem is with the content and quality of training that that forms the degree requirements.

A "Master of Divinity" degree is a religious degree awarded to professional clergy. The entrance requirements for these programs universally require some form of undergraduate credentials, but they also will provide full admission to applicants with religious degrees that are invested with a minimal level of liberal arts content, like the B.R.E. What that means is that one could effectively enter such a program with no formal basic training in history, natural and social science, or philosophy. I have on several occasions met M.Divs who are essentially historically and philosophically illiterate. Others who have never sat in an introductory level university course on biology, chemistry, physics or psychology.

Zacharius is essentially an armchair philosopher with an exceptional talent for presentation. Lots of appeal, but little of any actual substance.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is exactly what he did. Ravi Zacharius is a persuasive speaker and a passionate pseudo-intellectual who is able to translate these attributes into a visage of academic expertise. The truth is, he is not a PhD...

Just for the sake of clarity, Zacharius didn't write the article. The author of the article, Andy Bannister, has a PhD in Islamic Studies.

EDIT: Though I agree entirely with your summarisation of Zacharius.

[GGG]

Isn't the central belief of agnostic atheism that based on all available evidence it is highly unlikely that their is no god and 0 evidence to support the existence of God but if evidence existed they would change their belief.

A gnostic atheist is a belief system though because it states with certainty that there is no God which based on available evidence (or ever) can't be proven.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by GGG

Isn't the central belief of agnostic atheism that based on all available evidence it is highly unlikely that their is no god and 0 evidence to support the existence of God but if evidence existed they would change their belief.

A gnostic atheist is a belief system though because it states with certainty that there is no God which based on available evidence (or ever) can't be proven.

An Agnostic believes the existence of god to be unknowable. While an Atheist believes there is no god. "Weak Atheism" is essentially Agnosticism, wherein the Weak Atheist believes that there is not enough evidence to justify a definitive position on god.

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.


The "would change their mind" argument is one that most apologists (yay I get to use the word!) bring out as justification, but it's not a unique qualifier as the same could be said by any agnostic or religious person as well. The type of evidence required would be extreme, or essentially the "evidence" is a straw man, because if you ask an atheist (or any religious person) what evidence would suffice, they themselves would suggest a type of evidence that they believe to be impossible.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

An Agnostic believes the existence of god to be unknowable. While an Atheist believes there is no god. "Weak Atheism" is essentially Agnosticism, wherein the Weak Atheist believes that there is not enough evidence to justify a definitive position on god.

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.


The "would change their mind" argument is one that most apologists (yay I get to use the word!) bring out as justification, but it's not a unique qualifier as the same could be said by any agnostic or religious person as well. The type of evidence required would be extreme, or essentially the "evidence" is a straw man, because if you ask an atheist (or any religious person) what evidence would suffice, they themselves would suggest a type of evidence that they believe to be impossible.

The classic example of evidence for creation and therefor god is "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian".

I prefer Dawkins definitions of atheism but I suppose even he classifies himself as an agnostic. But if you want to use those definitions that's fine at least it's a frame of reference.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

As far as I'm aware, based on the scholarly definition of both Atheism and what a belief system is, it checks off all the important boxes (you believe something to be true, a collective community follows said belief, and that belief informs lifestyle and other beliefs).

Huh. That's a pretty open ended definition of a belief system, and it also gives too much credit to plain old "not believing" in something.

I don't believe in unicorns, some other people share my non-belief in unicorns, and this belief informs my lifestyle in the sense that I don't worry about unicorns.

By your definition, this is a belief system, and even a community.

You and I, I assume, share this belief system. Welcome to the flock.