Religion, Atheism, and Art

[bleeding heart]

“Religions are too good to be abandoned to people who actually believe in them,” he said.

At any rate, I don't know how much of this I agree with--or even if I've entirely gleaned his point from this short piece--but I think it's fodder for some fascinating discussions.

I think he's a great believer in the excellent effects of tradition, of humility in the face of Mysteries, and of the salutary effects of religion on art...art as a living conversation about the big questions of human existence.

[Michael Hardner]

“Religions are too good to be abandoned to people who actually believe in them,” he said.

At any rate, I don't know how much of this I agree with--or even if I've entirely gleaned his point from this short piece--but I think it's fodder for some fascinating discussions.

I think he's a great believer in the excellent effects of tradition, of humility in the face of Mysteries, and of the salutary effects of religion on art...art as a living conversation about the big questions of human existence.

Who is "he" ? Not God, or you would have capitalized it.

[Michael Hardner]

Religion and Athiesm are essentially the same thing - a faith-based world view. We've discussed it on here countless times. They evolved into a science-based world view, which was better for making wheelbarrows, curing infections and so on, but left the fun and mystery out of it... at least for awhile.

I think we're now realizing that knowledge and faith can't satisfy all human needs, certainly in the ways that arts and community do. The 20th century did a lot for us materially, but spiritually we are worse off than ever. A new kind of money will soon emerge to help satisfy our spiritual needs the same way that our current money system helps satisfy our material needs.

All will be well again soon, and we'll be happy. I especially will be happy when we stop discussing things as though it was 1970, 1950, or 1930 again...

[bleeding heart]

Who is "he" ? Not God, or you would have capitalized it.

I forgot the link!

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/03/10/atheist-alain-de-botton-challenges-hitchens-assertion-that-religion-poisons-everything/

[bleeding heart]

Religion and Athiesm are essentially the same thing - a faith-based world view.

No. Religion is always a faith-based worldview, and atheism often is.

And that's an enormous difference.

We've discussed it on here countless times. They evolved into a science-based world view, which was better for making wheelbarrows, curing infections and so on, but left the fun and mystery out of it... at least for awhile.

Speaking strictly for myself, I have viewed the world as more fun (and beautifully mysterious) since abandoning religion.

All will be well again soon, and we'll be happy. I especially will be happy when we stop discussing things as though it was 1970, 1950, or 1930 again...

I'm not sure I understand.

[Bonam]

Religion and Athiesm are essentially the same thing - a faith-based world view.

No, atheism has nothing to do with faith. You might want to review what atheism is.

A new kind of money will soon emerge to help satisfy our spiritual needs the same way that our current money system helps satisfy our material needs.

?

[Michael Hardner]

No. Religion is always a faith-based worldview, and atheism often is.

I don't know how much faith is in Unitarianism, Bhuddism... and maybe others I don't know ? Zoaroastians ? Rosecrutions ? Spelling isn't my religion btw.

Speaking strictly for myself, I have viewed the world as more fun (and beautifully mysterious) since abandoning religion.

You think it's fun to have nothing happen when you die ? What's more fun than heaven ?

I'm Catholic - we have fun on earth AND in heaven.

I'm not sure I understand.

"How do we protect unions and the working man" - 1970s discussion.

"Is God Dead ?" - I think that was a magazine cover in the 1950s.

"Work and Wages !" - labour cry from the 1930s.

Nobody is talking about the ongoing balkanization of national dialogue, the move away from cities, or any of the Alvin Toffler stuff, even, from futures past.

"Work and

[Michael Hardner]

No, atheism has nothing to do with faith. You might want to review what atheism is.

I know what it is. It's certainty without evidence, just like religion.

?

Soul penny for your thoughts ?

[bleeding heart]

I don't know how much faith is in Unitarianism, Bhuddism... and maybe others I don't know ? Zoaroastians ? Rosecrutions ? Spelling isn't my religion btw.

I knew a Buddhist who had a framed photograph of "His Holiness" above a little shrine in his livingroom.

You think it's fun to have nothing happen when you die ? What's more fun than heaven ?

No one knows whether Heaven would be fun or not. The dead sure aren't telling.

I'm Catholic - we have fun on earth AND in heaven.

I'm not belittling the idea of the faithful enjoying themselves.

You're the one who doubts that atheists can be really enjoying themselves.

"How do we protect unions and the working man" - 1970s discussion.

"Is God Dead ?" - I think that was a magazine cover in the 1950s.

"Work and Wages !" - labour cry from the 1930s.

Since you don't (cannot possibly) believe that these discussions are over, are you suggesting that they should be?

Nobody is talking about the ongoing balkanization of national dialogue, the move away from cities, or any of the Alvin Toffler stuff, even, from futures past.

Alvin Toffler is, like, so....1970s!!!!

Edited May 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

I knew a Buddhist who had a framed photograph of "His Holiness" above a little shrine in his livingroom.

Did he have faith in Buddha or did he just value his teachings ?

No one knows whether Heaven would be fun or not. The dead sure aren't telling.

The faithful sure do. And that's what we're comparing here - faith world view vs science world view.

You're the one who doubts that atheists can be really enjoying themselves.

I think I said that that world view is "no fun"... life is miserable then you die... nothingness... more power if you find fun in that.

Since you don't (cannot possibly) believe that these discussions are over, are you suggesting that they should be?

I'd like them to be. I can't say what people "should" talk about, but fresh conversation is more interesting to me.

Alvin Toffler is, like, so....1970s!!!!

Some past futures are more relevant than others. Clay Shirky writes about a current future I like reading on.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. Religion is always a faith-based worldview...

Disagree with that...pagans like me expressly reject "faith-based" belief systems, but it can still be "religion".

[Michael Hardner]

Disagree with that...pagans like me expressly reject "faith-based" belief systems, but it can still be "religion".

B_C a pagan ? Say it ain't so ! Possibly the only Bush/Cheney supporting pagan in existence ! Next thing you'll be telling me you live in Vermont !

[bleeding heart]

Did he have faith in Buddha or did he just value his teachings ?

Both. And in fact (the example of my acquaintance notwithstanding) Buddhism has, and has always had, plenty of genuine religious fanaticism accompanying it.

The faithful sure do.

If you believe this, then you also believe that atheists--since their view is "faith-based"--know that the faithful are wrong.

And that's what we're comparing here - faith world view vs science world view.

I don't think there is a science world view that categorically states that it knows Heaven does not exist.

At any rate, any atheist worth his or her salt is simultaneously an agnostic, in the Bertrand Russell formulation of atheist = agnostic. In my opinion.

That is, I can't know that the Catholic Trinity is not perfectly real and categorically true...hence, agnosticism. But by the same token (and I mean precisely, unequivocally the same token) I can't know that competing faiths, say the Homeric gods, aren't actually the truth, the objective reality. That's where atheism instantly sneaks its way into the agnosticism.

I think I said that that world view is "no fun"... life is miserable then you die... nothingness... more power if you find fun in that.

Atheists no more believe that "life is miserable" than do the faithful; and arguably less so.

And again, it's not about "nothingness"...it's about not knowing, a humility that Christ's followers, at least, should appreciate, humility being a type of philosophical genius, and which speaks quite well for Christianity as an important agent of achievement of thought.

I'd like them to be. I can't say what people "should" talk about, but fresh conversation is more interesting to me.

Well, labour issues are real enough, whether you wish we'd stop talking about them or not.

And the Catholic view of heaven--with all due respect--is far, far from a fresh and original conversation. Labour issues are brand spanking new in comparison.

Or for perhaps a more relevant comparison, technological marvels that will save mankind and solve our problems are also a far older and at least somewhat discredited notion, dating back to H.G. Wells perfectly, but no doubt much farther than that in some respects.

[The_Squid]

I know what it is. It's certainty without evidence, just like religion.

"Prove He doesn't exist" is not possible and irrational.

Atheism is not without evidence.... it is a disbelief in things that are without evidence. That is an enormous distinction that theists just cannot, or will not, grasp.

That line of reasoning makes as much sense as the "I'm rubber, you're glue" debating tactic....

[Michael Hardner]

Both. And in fact (the example of my acquaintance notwithstanding) Buddhism has, and has always had, plenty of genuine religious fanaticism accompanying it.

I think if you like someone's ideas then faith takes a back seat.

If you believe this, then you also believe that atheists--since their view is "faith-based"--know that the faithful are wrong.

Well, athiests ARE the faithful, but yes I know what you mean and I do believe that.

I don't think there is a science world view that categorically states that it knows Heaven does not exist.

You're right !

At any rate, any atheist worth his or her salt is simultaneously an agnostic, in the Bertrand Russell formulation of atheist = agnostic. In my opinion.

Many athiests aren't worth their salt, as it seems they have given as little thought to their belief system as some religious folk.

Atheists no more believe that "life is miserable" than do the faithful; and arguably less so.

No - that's MY belief.

Well, labour issues are real enough, whether you wish we'd stop talking about them or not.

I just want to stop talking about them as though freelance graphic designers working from home are the same as West Virginia coal miners. That's the 1930s part. We use old frameworks for discussion too often IMO.

And the Catholic view of heaven--with all due respect--is far, far from a fresh and original conversation. Labour issues are brand spanking new in comparison.

No need for respect. I stopped practicing Catholicism years ago... I was so good at it I didn't need to practice any more.

Or for perhaps a more relevant comparison, technological marvels that will save mankind and solve our problems are also a far older and at least somewhat discredited notion, dating back to H.G. Wells perfectly, but no doubt much farther than that in some respects.

That's a really old futurism right there. Marvels cause more problems than they solve, at least in the short term. That includes Captain Marvel.

[Michael Hardner]

"Prove He doesn't exist" is not possible and irrational.

Then no proof is possible, and therefore no certainty on the topic.

Atheism is not without evidence.... it is a disbelief in things that are without evidence. That is an enormous distinction that theists just cannot, or will not, grasp.

Disbelief is a form of belief. It is a belief that something is not there. The English is inexact, though. Sometimes people mean to say "lack of belief" and they say disbelief.

That line of reasoning makes as much sense as the "I'm rubber, you're glue" debating tactic....

That's fine, yet how can you explain the fact that what you say bounces off me and indeed sticks to you as evidenced in this post ?

We need a new thread on who exactly is rubber and glue, perhaps.

[Bonam]

The claim that a god or gods exist, as described in various monotheistic or polytheistic religions, is a positive claim. To accept this claim, without evidence to prove it, is to "believe", or to "have faith". Not to accept this claim is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of requiring proof (or at least some evidence) before accepting a claim. Without evidence to show that something exists, there is no reason to believe that it exists, and every reason to think that it does not.

Atheism is not faith, it is the simple application of basic logic to the evidence that exists in the natural world.

[Michael Hardner]

Not to accept this claim is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of requiring proof (or at least some evidence) before accepting a claim.

"Not accepting", in this example, means saying "I don't believe this is necessarily true". If you say "I know that this is necessarily false" then you aren't only not accepting, but instead making a counter-claim that requires proof.

If the statement "God definitely exists" can't be proven, then we don't know anything about His existence, and certainly we don't know that he definitely does not exist.

Atheism is not faith, it is the simple application of basic logic to the evidence that exists in the natural world.

That's agnosticism. Atheism is faith.

[bleeding heart]

That's agnosticism. Atheism is faith.

I think there are two pretty distinct types of agnosticism:

One, and that is commonly held (but isn't, or isn't necessarily, actual agnosticism) is that which states, explicitly or implicitly, that "the core Christian belief system (ie Jesus and His Divinity) may be true, but I'm not convinced."

(Substitute Christianity for whatever is the dominant religion of a particular region or culture.)

This is an "agnosticism" that nods towards a single religion, but tends to automatically eschew all others.

Why? Well, we can only ask these self-professed agnostics, but in my experience they refuse to answer, being less inclined than the truly devout to honestly discuss such matters.

The other agnosticism is of the type I mentioned earlier: that I can't speak with absolute, scientific certainty that Christianity is false, but that Christianity holds precisely the same position as all other religions....which rather opens the door wide for true scepticism (to which the culturally-specific "agnosticism" does not really belong)...and to atheism.

In short, I'm technically an agnostic; but for all intents and purposes, I am an atheist.

Sounds slightly contradictory, and it is, but only in the sense that I'm "agnostic" (and, technically, I am) about the Loch Ness Monster or the faeries of Ireland.

I'm not being coy here; I'm serious.

That is, I can accept, happily, the term "agnostic" if it does not require some specious sense of "balance," in which belief in a deity must (for unspoken reasons) acquire equal weight to a lack of belief.

Such unwarranted balance is in effect a type of "faith," determined by a wrongheaded sense of equivalence.

Edited May 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Bonam]

Well said bleeding heart. I agree fully.

[bleeding heart]

Well said bleeding heart. I agree fully.

Thanks. I'd further add that if presented with strong evidence of a god, I'd happily change my tune...because it would be based on evidence...but that even then, I wouldn't blame myself for my previous atheism, as I'd think it remained a rational position until the evidence presented itself.

Put another way, that the Cuban missile crisis didn't result in nuclear war doesn't mean folks were wrong to worry about it while it was ongoing. They were right.

[kimmy]

I know what it is. It's certainty without evidence, just like religion.

Under the definition of atheism you're clinging to, not even Richard Dawkins himself is an atheist.

Suppose someone told you that there's a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun somewhere between earth and Mars.

If you're evaluating that claim, do you start off with the assumption that "Yes" and "No" are equally credible positions?

Do you ask the person who says "no, there's no teapot" to put forth his case, or do you want proof from the pro-teapot side?

An atheist is someone who says "I won't believe that the teapot is really there unless somebody gives me a reason to."

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Under the definition of atheism you're clinging to, not even Richard Dawkins himself is an atheist.

I'm sorry but it's actually a common view. Furthermore, it's a common problem. I have asked atheists this question, and their quizzical looks revealed that they think about their faith as much as anyone else.

I'm glad Dawkins isn't an atheist; he's more intelligent than I suspected.

Suppose someone told you that there's a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun somewhere between earth and Mars.

WHAT ?!? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN ?!? KIMMY SEND ME A PICTURE !!!

If you're evaluating that claim, do you start off with the assumption that "Yes" and "No" are equally credible positions?

Do you ask the person who says "no, there's no teapot" to put forth his case, or do you want proof from the pro-teapot side?

An atheist is someone who says "I won't believe that the teapot is really there unless somebody gives me a reason to."

-k

The teapot idea is clearly and unequivocally a product of human imagination. While one, strictly speaking, can't say they don't *know* that it's not true, we can rest on the basic truism that things that are clearly imagined by humans come from humans and do not exist apart from humans.

By that line of thinking, I would also agree that there is no man with a beard sitting on a chair in the clouds looking at us, and I wouldn't deem it an act of faith to think that it isn't true, i.e. there is no "God guy". It's not an act of faith because there is logic there, and a logical frame of reference to make a conclusion.

Theism, though, is more than just that. It imagines, at its core, that there is something beyond the material world and that there is a force that directs it. I would say that this is the most basic description of the un-provable elements of theism.

An atheist, from what I understand, only believes in a perceivable (for whatever that is worth) material world and nothing beyond. He/She *knows* there is nothing more.

These words mean different things to different people, and we have to accept that people use words that aren't accurate. But I have to point out that atheists aren't really atheist, despite the popular use of that word.

[Guest Manny]

Suppose someone told you that there's a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun somewhere between earth and Mars.

If you're evaluating that claim, do you start off with the assumption that "Yes" and "No" are equally credible positions?

Do you ask the person who says "no, there's no teapot" to put forth his case, or do you want proof from the pro-teapot side?

An atheist is someone who says "I won't believe that the teapot is really there unless somebody gives me a reason to."

-k

There is in fact a nebula called "The teapot" that is well known among astronomers. Many nebulae and other types of deep space objects have fanciful knicknames conjured by the imagination. But they do in fact describe what it looks like, to our brains which have the ability to see images where one might say, there are none.

People, even scientists, like to create imagery and use simple metaphors to explain vastly complex things. That's the "art" part of it.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Manny

[Michael Hardner]

There is in fact a nebula called "The teapot" that is well known among astronomers.

Isn't that just like the universe to provide tea and not coffee ?