Advertisement
Maybe it's Arthur C. Clarke's book title "Childhood's End" kicking around in my subconscious since grade school days, or watching my little nieces slowly developing their rational capacities, but more and more I see beliefs in deities as being stuck in a kind of permanent childhood, and atheism as the state of having truly arrived as a rational adult.
Last year I was reading Ariana Huffington's blog a lot and one blogger on there, Cenk Uygur, stands out as a pretty militant atheist. The comments thread on his blog overflows with rabid American Taliban apologists, predictably enough, whenever he raises a theme of atheism in one of his posts, but there are also the folks who try the angle of "but God makes me a loving person who goes out and helps people". There were some like that about a month after Katrina, who were trying to assert that there were no atheists helping the New Orleans victims. I posted the following in response concerning what motivates compassionate action, quoting one Christian's comment:
' "They are out in force giving the love that you say does not exist."
This love they're giving comes, in fact, from them, regardless of what they may conceive of as its source. Their imagining of the presence of a God as the source of their love doesn't prove there actually is one, and constitutes a useful placebo effect at best.
As for me, I'll trust someone whose caring comes from an understanding that one should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do, because it's in one's enlightened self-interest to do (the Golden Rule), far more than I would trust someone's motivation to do right which flows from their fear of punishment or hope of reward from an imagined God in an imagined afterlife. Internally motivated by one's here-and-now understanding of verifiable reality - not externally motivated by a blind faith in something imagined, invisible and unprovable.
An external, faith-based motivation is inherently a rickety structure, and is the stance of a child who has not yet developed full rational capacity, towards an invisible Parent whose supposed Word substitutes for, and stifles the development of, their own moral, rational code of behavior, which can only be developed in our interaction with each other.
We really are on our own, and this requires us to grow up, to become rational, compassionate adults. The good news is that we are capable of this if we can cast off this infantilizing blind faith.
By: MoralAtheist on September 26, 2005 at 11:06am '
Last year I was reading Ariana Huffington's blog a lot and one blogger on there, Cenk Uygur, stands out as a pretty militant atheist. The comments thread on his blog overflows with rabid American Taliban apologists, predictably enough, whenever he raises a theme of atheism in one of his posts, but there are also the folks who try the angle of "but God makes me a loving person who goes out and helps people". There were some like that about a month after Katrina, who were trying to assert that there were no atheists helping the New Orleans victims. I posted the following in response concerning what motivates compassionate action, quoting one Christian's comment:
' "They are out in force giving the love that you say does not exist."
This love they're giving comes, in fact, from them, regardless of what they may conceive of as its source. Their imagining of the presence of a God as the source of their love doesn't prove there actually is one, and constitutes a useful placebo effect at best.
As for me, I'll trust someone whose caring comes from an understanding that one should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do, because it's in one's enlightened self-interest to do (the Golden Rule), far more than I would trust someone's motivation to do right which flows from their fear of punishment or hope of reward from an imagined God in an imagined afterlife. Internally motivated by one's here-and-now understanding of verifiable reality - not externally motivated by a blind faith in something imagined, invisible and unprovable.
An external, faith-based motivation is inherently a rickety structure, and is the stance of a child who has not yet developed full rational capacity, towards an invisible Parent whose supposed Word substitutes for, and stifles the development of, their own moral, rational code of behavior, which can only be developed in our interaction with each other.
We really are on our own, and this requires us to grow up, to become rational, compassionate adults. The good news is that we are capable of this if we can cast off this infantilizing blind faith.
By: MoralAtheist on September 26, 2005 at 11:06am '
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Tue, May 9, 2006 - 12:26 AMOh, btw, here's Cenk's post from last Sept.:
www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-u...40.html
Just re-read it; pretty good.
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Tue, May 9, 2006 - 11:35 AMI believe that many religionists are very rational people. If a person comes to a religious husband and says his wife is cheating on him, that husband asks for and requires evidence bound by reason just like any atheist would.
Even though we like to think we are all rational people, we apply our rational abilities selectively at times.
The problem is that in the area of religion they are taught strictly not to think about their beliefs in a rational way due mainly due to the psychological trauma induced by the taught consequences of even contemplating disbelief. At risk is a fundamental change in the way they see and experience the world that is not that appealing of an option in many ways. It's a well constructed psychological trap. This is why we sometimes see PhD scientists insisting the earth is 6000 years old. =) -
-
Unsu...
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, June 28, 2006 - 5:34 PMJon, your comments remind me of something my aunt Esther once said: "If the Bible said you could grow hair on a doorknob, I'd believe it."
That still cracks me up but she spoke in earnest.
My mom---the one who took the kids to church--is absolutely terrified of thinking anything that might go against the Bible. She won't read books ABOUT the Bible for fear she will be lead astray. I love my mom, but that's just stupid. Of course, what can I do? She's my mom. I can't very well take her over my knee or send her to her room with a sober biblical commentary.
I really like what you said here about how these same people--in other contexts--can be reasonable as you please. I know a guy from India who taught physics for years and had some profound religious experience---he went off and learned Greek and is now a published Bible shcolar who takes prayers for healing seriously. I still think: how does he do that? I assume his physics were fine and I know his Greek is awesome---and yet he's a certifiable believer in faith healing. And Catholic, of all things---many Catholics are embarrassed by Catholics who believe in faith healing. I don't know how the guy can think like he does. I really don't. But he's an accomplished scholar and a good teacher. "There are more things in heaven and earh, Horatio...."
-
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 1:57 PMi'm not sure to what extent those theists are rational.
i see the divide between belief and not to be one of philosophy - materialism vs. idealism (not materialism like being into things or idealism as in head fulla high ideals).
so to me i would say that all folks who are theists of a sort are all idealists and i don't find idealism to be all that rational. i also see it as being sort of all encompassing. i think the extent to which all humans on earth have to function physically with the world to be more of a disproof of idealism so those folks are sort of living in a strange denial.
anyway thats the hard line in a nutshell which sounds way more dogmatic than i actually am.
i actually agree that it is a sort of rudamentary thought that there must be an external consicousness of sorts in order to explain what we don't get as humans. and its very earth centric in this enormous universe. like human consciousness gets to make such things up, especially the notion that we've been made in gods image. hhhhh. silly monkeys.
but i think of it in terms of being a hinderance on human potential. we hang out thinking we are dependent on all these other forces to get from a to b and this makes it really difficult for us to see how much we are actually able to do ourselves as humans. if we don't think we might be able to do things that we leave for "god" to do, then we might never try. and i really think that losing our belief in god or the likes of is an important part of our social development.
isn't the amzingness of matter in motion that thru a bunch of order and chaos ended up creating a consciousness such as humans have - isn't that awe-some enough? i don't need to worship it. humbly trying to understand it and harness whatever of it as possible - ok. cool.
as far as love is concerned, i have a story:
my grandmother was a devout daoist.
her sons, most of them, became some kind of avid christians.
when the church told my grandmother that because of her mobility problems she need not worry about coming to the temple any more, that she had done enough, my grandmother sort of decided she didn't want to live anymore. she collapsed.
my uncle was in the ambulance trying to convert her and the paramedic told him to stop because it was fucking with her blood preassure. he went on.
anyway she died.
she had paid for her own funeral arrangements and ceremony.
most of her sons show up
but because they felt that the whole process was blasphemy, they would not participate in any part of the daoist ceremony. they were heartbreakingly horrid.
myself and my brother, atheists, were filling in for my dad who was the most respected of her sons.
myself and my brother, we carried the ceremony respectfully and without conflict.
we had no issue of our god being angry for our actions
we had only respect for my grandmother and the person she was, regardless of her beliefs
we even had respect for the beliefs themselves, seeing them as part of human history and important in shaping who we have become.
who had more love?
anyway, here's a poem i wrote about it if i may:
6 sons, 7 gods
Joss sticks burning
red candles burning
rice paper cash for the afterworld set fire
a little at
a time
breathing dry smoke
deep and short
Daoist re-memories
half of me feels the webbing tied almost
to the beginning of human kind
almost
I can't believe in the supreme but in her death
I held her gods
all 7 of them
So heavy in her soul and her sons refused
to share the burden
all 6 of them
I will face her memory in 2 days time
incense burning
candles burning
bowing and oranges
an installment on her heavenly mortgage flaming in my hand
Sadness and relief;
I won't have to carry
6 sons and 7 gods in my soul for all time.
9/20/03 -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 5:53 PMWhen my mother died, all my brother could do was complain that no pictures of us children were included in her slideshow more or less of her life. He didn't bother to show up when it was time to pick out what photos were to be used. I had to remind him that the whole thing wasn't about us.....the funeral was about her life. -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 5:54 PMman, i typed that all wrong. sorry. -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 6:03 PMi didn't hear anything wrong...
people who get all fucked up about things are at their worst around death. so many of the lowest human dramas are played out at the deaths of parents.
my uncle tried to convince us that his mom had accepted christ into her heart there on her death bed. yeah, right. she decided to die because she couldn't go to her temple anymore and then she accepts christ at the last moment? yeah right.
anyway,.... -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 6:20 PMi'm right there with you. my mother couldn't even speak when she died, she had lost speech. I was completely disgusted that he said anything and hadn't bothered at all to help the planning procedures....i just wanted to make sure she got her due and everything according to what she wanted. isn't it strange how funerals and human nature goes?
-
-
-
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 7:09 PMThanks for that. A beautiful and obviously heartfelt poem. You illustrate well the down-to-earth compassion of us supposedly amoral/immoral atheists.
As Cenk Uygur was saying in his blog and I tried to restate, all we clever (and silly) monkeys really have for help and meaningfulness is each other - no gods to appeal to as all-knowing, powerful Parents, OR to hinder our taking ultimate responsibilty to act compassionately, as your uncles' Christianity blinded them and hindered their ability to act compassionately towards their mother. One could say they were obeying an imaginary Parent, which caused them to dishonour their real parent. (A very sad and disturbing story - I'm glad you and your brother were there to at least keep it from being even sadder.)
I hope I haven't come off as disrespectful of the religious *impulse* itself - humans' desire to make connections and find meaning - the Latin roots of the word being "re - ligere", "to rejoin". (Ligament being another word on that etymological branch.) As you alluded, there's a long history, in all cultures, which reflects this impulse. I just have a (huge) problem with the impulse being misdirected into the creation of imaginary beings which keep us from growing up and taking full responsibility for ourselves.
Interesting that you bring up the materialism vs. idealism divide (and I understand what you mean about the inapplicability of the usual, popular sense of those words) - I just started back in school for a philosophy degree, after many years, and in both the philosophy of mind and epistemology courses I just took, this is touched upon quite a bit. (It's interesting to me also that one of my uncles, the only other firm atheist I know of in my family, is a doctor of philosophy, and the most progressive politically in the family; many years active in the peace movement in England where he lives. I sometimes wonder if the intellectual rigor that studying philosophy entails tends to lead one to atheism. So far I think it does.)
My atheism doesn't stop me from admiring Sufis, Zen Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, etc. Even the occasional Christian. Humans come up with some interesting and valid insights into themselves and the universe within these traditions, even as they also have come up with a lot of Cosmik Debris (to quote one of my heroes, Frank Zappa) and made the theist mistake. Also, I'm a long-standing student of Indian music (years ago I got a degree in music) and I have a number of pictures and statuettes of Ganesh and Sarasvati (she's the goddess of music; and Ganesh symbolizes perserverance to me) around my place. Even my MySpace page (csharporchestra) has a Sarasvati as the background. Does this mean I think for a moment that the Hindu gods are real? Of course not; but I appreciate them as archetypal projections of human attributes, a lot richer than Christian archetypes, actually. (I''ve studied Jung a bit and been through some Jungian analysis.)
There was a line in one of Herman Hesse's books (which I read as a teenager) where one character says to another "honour all religions", in much the same sense that I just described. They are indeed part of our history and we should honour the connectivist impulse that motivates them (at root the same impulse that drives science), and take what may be useful from them - the parts that are really just illuminations of our own psyches and their relationship to the world - and discard the unfortunate theistic imaginings.
As far as the deep tendency to imagine "an external consciousness of sorts" - I suppose it's a psychological analogue of our being hardwired by survival selection to see and recognize faces, which leads us to see faces in the most random assortments of dots and lines, wrinkles on potato chips, mountains on Mars, etc. -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 7:51 PM"but i think of it in terms of being a hinderance on human potential. we hang out thinking we are dependent on all these other forces to get from a to b and this makes it really difficult for us to see how much we are actually able to do ourselves as humans. if we don't think we might be able to do things that we leave for "god" to do, then we might never try. and i really think that losing our belief in god or the likes of is an important part of our social development."
Really well said! A better formulation of the idea of what arrests our development as a rational species than I have come up with.
"isn't the amzingness of matter in motion that thru a bunch of order and chaos ended up creating a consciousness such as humans have - isn't that awe-some enough? i don't need to worship it. humbly trying to understand it and harness whatever of it as possible - ok. cool."
Yeah. It's enough.
This reminded me of what a friend of mine (another musician who's a software developer) said recently in response to something I wrote in my MySpace blog about the late physicist Richard Feynman (I used audio of a quote of his - see below - in an ambient tribute to him I did about ten years ago) - I'd said that in considered myself a "spiritual" atheist in the sense of having a sense of awe at the universe, etc.
His comment was
"Feynman was one of my heroes as well. It was neat to read your blog entry regarding him this morning. Just yesterday, my son and I had a conversation about his "physical" relationship with the universe. Little kids certainly don't have a hard time feeling the spirituality of being the "stuff of stars" and a universally co-mingled wave."
The Feynman quote:
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "why we're here", and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit, if I can figure it out; then I go into something else.
But I don't have to know an answer, I don't have- I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." - Richard Feynman
(While I'm at it, here's my favorite Carl Sagan quote: "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Almost could be an atheist motto.) -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 9:57 PMi am the daughter of a physicist, a materialist, a radical left activist. we can say i carry that part of the familiy tradition. :) i really do think that a great deal of study in the sciences (i consider philosophy to be a science when it is approached like a meterialist approaches it) will push a person to be at least agnostic if not an atheist.
that acutally makes 2 things disturbing: quantum physics and intelligent design.
you have read a great deal more than me, kai. thanks for some etymology on "religion". that is actually how i feel about it too. i am generally speaking only mad at the right wing religious zealots, fundamentalists and such, who do more to uphold fascism and the current socio-econimic structures than anything else. the average run of the mill church goer or non-church going believer i think is just looking for connection with other people and some kind of explanation for why we are here, a reason. we want reasons for everything.
acutally, when i'm kinda blue, as i am today, or rather, when im quite blue, as i am today, and my mind gets cornered in questions of my worth in life, i have to seek out atheists because to even imply that im having such issues to the religious is like a welcome matt for some "take my god, please" speech. that never helps. just makes me more disappointed.
definitions as i learned them:
materialism - all things are matter in motion
idealism
-objective idealism: some external conscious something or other determines things
-subjective idealism: the world is not the world but only what we perceive with our senses - our sense are the only thing that is "real" - that's kinda like "i am god" in a way.
anyway, so in my view most people are objective idealists.
i like that you draw a parallel like children who need to learn independence. the really funny thing about it is that these children actually created the parent they need to be independent from.
i often refer to us as star dust. amazing little stardusts.
ok, but Feyman sounds like an agnostic. is that true? im sort of thinking i should start a separate post about agnosticism because i have been struggling with it. i am actually in the end not at all an agnostic but at the same time know that we can't know everything - that's just impossible. but i know that so i am not agnostic about it. hehe. anyway, thinking about a new post.....
and i do really want to even further sharpen the explanation of how it is that theism is a hindrance on humans. im not satisfied with what i have said there. i think to push it deeper or further, i would have to chase the philosophical stuff down more and find it there.... well aside from the obvious which is that religion is used to develop blind faith in "our" governments in times of war, when they need fascistic control and don't want people to question it....
anyway, this is sort of not very linear is a bit fragmented. -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 9:58 PMcarl segan was a good example of a good materialist, even tho in the end he chose the dellusion - the master clock winder. -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Thu, May 11, 2006 - 10:17 AMDefinitely want to respond further to this thread - but I've gotta get ready for my Français class today (btw, Québec is interesting in that for centuries it was dominated by the Catholic Church, which the Anglais rulers let run the day-to-day life of the Québecois. But in the 60s - "the Quiet Revolution" here - they shrugged off the Church, the provincial government took over the schools and hospitals, and they rapidly modernized and became very secular. Church-going rates here, as in most of Canada, are quite low. You see a lot of churches here in town being turned into condos and whatnot. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped an evangelical from becoming Prime Minister: Stephen Harper, from Alberta, the Texas of Canada. Hoping it doesn't last. As an American, I want to warn folks here, lookout, you don't want to go down the same road.)
I think the Feynman quote can be taken out of context - I think he leaned more towards true atheism. I don't think he was talking about God.
But what I like about the quote is his comfort with not knowing everything, with his resistance to seizing upon certainty prematurely, without grounds for it, just for the sake of certainty - which is what religions tend to do: give people Definite Answers to things without the necessary independent, rational processes for determining truth (whatever that is.) And religions tend to resist the idea that we can't know everything, or at least tend to insist that if we can't know about something, we should defer to a deity on that subject, or to its priestly representative, instead of just leaving it alone. (Feynman: "Then I go on to something else...")
Anyway, more later. Thanks for provoking more thought. :-) -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Thu, May 11, 2006 - 12:24 PMim in a more later mode too.
but wanted to say, yes, i like letting go of having to know. i mean we can't. we can only learn and learn and learn.
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Thu, May 11, 2006 - 2:19 PMand, by the way, kai, since you said that about finding faces everywhere, i have been hungry for wrinkly potato chips. -
-
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Sun, May 14, 2006 - 2:40 PM...and I had to go out and get a bag of spicy fried plantain chips. ;-) Paging Dr. Pavlov...
Anyway, further thoughts on idealism/materialism:
"idealism
-objective idealism: some external conscious something or other determines things
-subjective idealism: the world is not the world but only what we perceive with our senses - our sense are the only thing that is "real" - that's kinda like "i am god" in a way."
Hmm, I think these two forms are quite intimately related:
Your description of subjective idealism sounds a bit like metaphysical (as opposed to epistemological, which I won't get into) internalism - "the content of one's mental states is independent of the outside world" - and also Descartes' starting position - the only thing he could be sure of was that he existed as a thinking mind - "I think therefore I am" - and could only figure out what was "real" from that point outwards; even his senses might not be trustworthy, and so the world might not actually be there. He expressed this in his essays The Meditations as "I might be being fooled into perceiving things by a malicious demon." (I paraphrase.)
He could only make this mistake of thinking that he could be just a mind, a disembodied mind which might or might not be "resident" in a body, if he first had the misconception that minds and thought etc. were some sort of parallel realm, some other stuff different from and equal to the physical world. A world of "spirit" or "souls". And this notion, this misconception, goes way, way back in history. (In modern guise it takes the form of the idea that it would be possible to offload your consciousness into a computer or android body. Mind as info and algorithms instead of some vague spirit matter, some "ghost in the machine", but still essentially a dualist, idealist notion which ignores how specifically and intimately the mind is an aspect of our particular bodily configuration. My mind would not be the way it is if my body was not the way *it* is.)
I think objective idealism originates in this general notion, implicit in subjective idealism, that there can be consciousnesses outside of, separate from, independent of bodies. Once that notion is in place, it's a short leap to imagining an all-powerful non-corporeal consciousness that directs the world or at least set it in motion.
So, yeah, most people are objective idealists, but in the way they conceive of mind/spirit/soul/whatever, they're also subjective idealists in the sense I've just described, and the two go hand in hand. Both flavours of idealism are essentially dualist. Materialism eliminates that dualism by "returning" mental & emotional activity to the material world instead of supposing that they exist in some special parallel spiritual realm.
Once you understand that consciousness, the mind, is an aspect of certain living bodies in the universe (and I think there are many degrees of consciousness and even sentience in living things), it becomes difficult if not impossible to see how a disembodied consciousness could possibly ever exist, whether as a "soul" or a "god".
And I think it also makes you respect and revere living beings more, knowing that the finiteness in time and space of a consciousness is tied directly to the finiteness and fragility of its body. It's quite telling that despite millennia of the dualist delusion and its consequent wishfulness for an afterlife, we still sometimes speak more truth than we know when we say, when someone has died, that they are gone.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Theisms as arrested development
Sun, May 14, 2006 - 9:53 PMhmmm. i followed, and liked your description of the flow from objective to subjective idealism and can see how that jprobably happens for a number of people, but i never thought that subjective idealism necessitated objective idealism that way. i never thought that one needed to assume an outter place of spirit or soul.
i alwasy thought of it as the adventures of an arrogant mind inside of itself, that subjective idealists really in the end are solipsists - im so rusty now, its been so long since i've read. solipsists, right? anyway, so yeah, i'm not convinced of the one necessitating the other.
not that i ever want to be too rigid about either definition beyond general and useful categorizations. i think there is no shortage of tripping from one into the other an back again.
i think, and i'm not sure if i can still remember why i think this and therefore how to argue it anymore, but i think that even agnosticism is a form of idealism. and i mean that in the pholosophical sense. who were classic agnostics again? hume? anyway, i think that agnosticism leads to a denial of the existance of actual things in the end since one can never know, things cannot be known, the material world may or may not exists. to me if nothing can be known then you are stuck with some variety of idealism again.
what do you think about that?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-