Recent email conversation
Offline Recently, I recieved this email from someone in response to the article on the front page of my website.
The question of whether or not Atheism is a religion is answered in the
framing of the question, and the semantic difference."atheism is the lack of belief in god" - you
"atheism is belief in the lack of god" - me
Here are some possible beliefs, which some might call atheistic:
I have no god
I don't know if there is a god
I believe there is no god
I don't believe in god
I don't believe in a god, on principle
I don't believe in a god, specifically speaking of this universeAs for me, one of the points you made is semi-valid. I'm surprised you would
set up such an obvious logical fallacy (bad analogy)."Atheism is a religion in the same way that baldness is a hair color." - you
"Atheism is a religion in the same way that baldness is a hairstyle." - me
A hairstyle describes the adornment of the head with hair, in varying lengths
and colors and arrangements."Bald" hairstyle:
length: zero
arrangement: unarranged
color: unknown(Note that it is nearly identical to the "completely shaved" hairstyle, which
is a styling of hair involving its trimming to zero length.)Religion is a word that means many things to many people. When I say Atheism
is a religion, I mean that it is a worldview which purports to explain the
universe. As for the amount of mystery or wonder required to qualify as a
religion, I have no say on that topic.Some religions answer specific questions; some do not. Zen bhuddism
apparently doesn't attempt to answer the question of God. Hindu beliefs don't
attempt to answer charges of logical contradiction. Atheism leaves it up to
the individual to chart their own course in this life. Some religions are
non-contradictory, such as Taoism and Atheism; some are complimentary.You ask an evangelical Christian if they are in a religion, half of them will
answer with a variation on "Religion is about works; faith is about a personal
relationship." You ask a cultist about their cult, they won't say it's a
cult. It is classed as a religion from the outside, just as Christianity,
just as Atheism, just as a cult.
To which i responded (with his subsequent replies embedded):
I think the analogy was apt. I said "hair color" rather than "hairstyle" because I make a distinction between theism and religion. Having hair would be theism. Not having hair would be atheism. Iff one has hair, then they can choose, if tehy like, a color. A bald person might paint their head a certain color, but it's not the same as having hair to color.
Luke wrote:... ah. I'm getting a clearer picture of what you mean...
As for this that you wrote:
"atheism is the lack of belief in god" - you
"atheism is belief in the lack of god" - me
I understand the difference. What I'm saying is that your defnition is not atheism. a-theism. Without theism; without belief in God. A belief that God does not exist is one held by many atheists, but another term is warrented. Most people call this "strong atheism," and the qualification "strong" is the point; you have to qualify atheism to get your "semantic difference." Yes, it is a semantic difference, which is how we distinguish between words and definitions.
Luke wrote:
hm...Atheism is not a worldview to explain anything, because it is only the lack of belief, nothing more. This cannot lead to any worldview of any kind by itself. It can limit the possible worldviews, but it does not lead to any in particular by necessity.
Luke wrote:
Aha. I see. What you are talking about seems similar to what I consider
"secular", ie, making no statements about the supernatural or any particular
worldview. Scanner-copiers from Xerox, for example, are secular." It is classed as a religion from the outside, just as Christianity,
just as Atheism, just as a cult."Sure, that might be the case. However, atheism cannot be correctly classed as a religion because it doesn't propose anything at all; it is merely a theological position. A theological position is not, itself, a religion.
Luke wrote:I see; you are dividing more finely than most I have discussed similar things
with.Theism is not a religion and neither is atheism. They are answers to the question of whether one has belief in a god. I don't believe in God; I lack belief in God. If I changed my mind and said that i did believe in God, I would still not necessarily be religious, I would just have a different belief.
Quote:Heh. In that sense, I consider myself a non-religious Christian; I don't
think of God from inside the church's framework, and often find more
fulfilling answers in the secular world.However, I have met a number of religious atheists, whose doctrines include
the nonexistence of God, the self-creation of the material universe billions
of years ago, life spontaneously from non-life, the evolution of all forms of
life from a common ancestry, the non-possibility of anything metaphysical, and
the eventual heat-death of the universe. They are locked in a holy war of
words and deeds with theists of all stripes, generally because of their
movement's adherence to the Humanist Manifesto. They are allied with the ACLU
and American liberals in general.That "group" is as much a religion as church-going Christianity. (And as much
a cat-herding situation as Christianity; few major religions are truly
organized these days, the Pope and the Lama notwithstanding.)
To which I responded:
Luke wrote:"However, I have met a number of religious atheists, whose doctrines include
the nonexistence of God, the self-creation of the material universe billions
of years ago, life spontaneously from non-life, the evolution of all forms of
life from a common ancestry..."These people you might call "naturalists" or even, possibly, "philosophical materialists." I would agree with these prosositions. I would not call them religious either. I would say that these positions are generally upheld by evidence, especially evolution. We know evolution happened, and natural selection it the most successful explanatory device we have to explain it. We don't know God does not exist, but the lack of evidence in support (from my point of view) does not lend to accepting that God does exist. The self-creation of the universe is trickier, as it is a question science has not answered sufficiently. What we do know is that proposing a more complex creator than the thing demanding an explanation doe snot seem like a sufficient example. That is, if the complexity of the universe needs an explanation, so would a creator or such a thing.
Luke wrote:"...the non-possibility of anything metaphysical, and
the eventual heat-death of the universe. They are locked in a holy war of
words and deeds with theists of all stripes, generally because of their
movement's adherence to the Humanist Manifesto. They are allied with the ACLU
and American liberals in general."The rejection of anything metaphysical is a proposition of materialists. I count myself amoung them. I cannot prove that nothing metaphysical exists (any more than I can prove that Allah or Zeus do not exist), but he lack of evidence to support such things is sufficient for me to lack belief in them as well. The eventual "heat death" of the universe is a subject for cosmologists, and I simply don't know.
As for Humanism, I don't see what the problem would be. The values of Humanism are very similar to many Christian ideals of loving one-another and respect of people and life in general. The ACLU is an organization designed to protect the rights of individuals. While not a liberal myself, I have no particular beef with liberalism. They tend to let me live my life without interference for the most part.
His response:
--my bit about naturalism, materialism, etc---
Call them what you will, some of them seem to be vehemently emotional againstthe idea of a God, and it seems to be more central than materialism in their worldview. To me, that's religious atheism.
There are also those who are vehemently against religion in general;
ironically, they devote themselves to it with religious fervor. To me, that's
religious humanism.There are devoted materialists for whom materialism is more important than thelack of a God or the elimination of religion. This category suits you better,
from what I've heard....
What wavelength is love? Of what elements is faith composed? The very nature of the non-material makes its measurement problematic. In the case of the God of the Bible (assuming a general Christian worldview of the universe), we must rely on psychology and historical probability, both "soft" sciences, to
determine if the historical accounts of the church from internal and secular
sources are discounted as biased.... (more of my last response quoted)
Humanists promote peace and respect as a matter of species survival, and see
religious obsessions as dangerous things to be squashed. Christians promote
peace and respect as a matter of "love thy neighbor as thyself", "do unto
others as you would have done unto you", and "greater love hath no man than
this; that he lay down his life for his friend."Humanists also generally promore the alternate history of Earth to the
exclusion of the Creation, Young Earth, Garden of Eden, Flood history, which
many believe to be vital to salvation theology.The scientific evidence in this debate is presented with interpretive bias on
both sides. My grandfather and great-grandfather, both professors of Geology,
believed that whole fields, acres and acres of sedimentary deposits were
turned upside down; and then fused so perfectly with the layers above and
below, that they might as well have been laid down in that order... except
that the "older" fossils were on top, and the "younger" fossils were on
bottom. And that this happened many hundreds of times all across the world.I believe in a young earth primarily because of its necessity to salvation
theology, and secondarily because the evidence on Earth supports it. In that
respect, I have a religious viewpoint. However, as long as the evidence can
support it, I will retain that bias. This is no different than
evolution-believing scientists who run into roadblocks and search for a
workaround that supports evolution.
At this point I'm simply smiling to myself and shaking my head. I just wrote the following back to him:
(concerning the conversation about materialism)
Yes, I'm a materialist. And many atheists i know are very anti-religious, most are simply anti-superstitious and anti-supernatural. Many people believe that the ideas of God that many people have are actually harmful. I agree only to a very small degree. I am more interested in making my point of view understood than in making other opinions disappear.
...
(in response to the bit about what wavelenth love is etc)
Love and faith are processes in a physical brain. Emotions are body states taht we percieve. they are physical events that we can locate and understand. We are getting closer to understanding these things fully with each scientific study.
I don't know why you paint these things as somehow ephemeral or transcendent realities. We can measure things like love, and understand why people have faith. These things are not immeasurable. Love is a 9possibly emergent) property of processes in the body/brain. Faith is an intentional stance of our belifs, which are brain states, and thus are physical.
...
(to the bit about Humanism)The vey basis of my own humanist ethics are almost exacyly the golden rule of "do unto others...". I think this is the basis to any good ethics. I don't base my ethics on species survival, but recognize that many of our ethical systems are actually a result of the fact that those who acted in these humanist ways tended to survive, thus passing along those traits.
Luke wrote:Humanists also generally promore the alternate history of Earth to the exclusion of the Creation, Young Earth, Garden of Eden, Flood history, which many believe to be vital to salvation theology.They may be vital to salvation theology, but there is no reason to accept that salvation theology is essential to us, let alone true. This would assume we need salvation from something. This assumption is part of the Christian worldview, but are not accepted by non-Christians. These stories tell us a lot about our psychological and philosophical development, but they don't hold up to evidence.
...
(to the bit about evidence supporting YEC)No, the evidence does not support it. If you accept something because believing it is necessary to accept some theology, the obvious question is why you need the salvation theology at all?
---
So I await further communication. I've invited him here to continue the conversation if he wants to, so we'll see if he shows up.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
His latest reply:
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
My reply:
But without the religious ideas that you accept, namely Young Earth Creationism, how could you arrive at the idea tha tthe earth is some 6000 years old? That is what superstition is. Your faith is completely informed by religion. How could it not? Where would you get the ideas if not from the scriptures? It's one thing to simply believe in God, but you do more than that. You accept a religious text in addition to that. How do you get from the philosophical acceptance of a creating being, to a particular one without religion? You cannot. Any claim that the book is simply the Truth or the word of God (or anything like that) is simply presupposing your conclusion. It's circular logic.
What you are talking about here is a form of "Platonism," which I reject. In fact, it was what I wrote my MA thesis on, in part). Essentially what I glean from your description is that this number "2" is transmitted around different structures like passing around water from glass to pitcher to cup (or whatever). What you seem to misunderstand is that this is not what is happening at all. The point of my explanation above is arguing the exact opposite. When you type the "2" key on your keyboard, all these processes happen. But al the steps in between are physical events. It is not "transmitted," "stored," or "retrieved" in the way that the English language here could be equivocated to mean. You are confusing the meaning of "transmit" et al with the way we pass a ball around to each other, when it is nothing like this.
But it is not device independent, it is simply specific-device independent. that is, it never exists outside of the device, but many kinds of devices can store and manipulate the information. Information is the pattern that the device stores, and not some actual entity that is transmitted around. It cannot exist in itself, but only as a pattern in a device that other devices can also "receive" through material processes and mechanical events that write them or otherwise encode them using physical events. An actual mechanistic process, of some kind, must be present to do the transmitting. It's not simply vessals that we make to put the "2" in. There ar eno ideals or forms of thigs, a la Plato.
Your claim that "it plays by different rules" is mere speculation. By what rules? How do you know? Why is this necessary? It seems like you are simply making up explanations to fit your conclusions.
And you are simply incorrect. I will not try to explain further, as this is the place of the specialists in that field to answer, which are available to you. You'll simply have go and read some studies about recent developments in studies about the physiological bases for emotion and other processes of the body.
Again, you misunderstand that they are physical. In fact, if we experience any of them, they MUST be physical, otherwsie our physical selves could not interact with them.
I'll take a look at the blog when I have some time in the next few days.
Then you continue to misunderstand the point of the essay you initially wrote in response to. Atheism does not imply anything. That is, there is no possible way to derive anything at all, whatsoever, from the lack of belief in God. Things like species survival are irrelevant to atheism. Atheism is irrelevant to survival at all, as it does not address it in any way.
You are making the confusion between naturalism/materialism and atheism again. So I will respond to the previous paragraph as if you were asking Shaun the naturalist (in addition to my atheism).
You severely fail in understanding the complexities of Nietzsche. I've read just about everything he's written and his thought is more subtle, complicated, beautiful, and challenging than just about anything I've read. To try and crystalize Nietzsche as saying we cannot trust one another and we must simply survive is a gross misunderstanding. But further, it is incorrect to think that without a God or some other greater source of morality, the only value that can be held is species survival not only misunderstands how Humanists view ethics, but also how science talks about ethics. There are a number of books out now that cite many studies in the various branches of the study of ethical development which argue that there is a universal (meaning shared by humans in general) ethical faculty build into our physiology. This is not to say that culture, religion, and philosophy do not alter or color how it is expressed, but that there is an inherent moral idea that we all have.
That is to say that it does not (necessarily, as I won't rule out automatically that God might have programmed the genetic code to include this, although I don't find this plausable or believable) mean that God provides our morality, either through revelation or through design. Science has a fine materialistic (that is, it does not require something more than matter to explain it) understanding of morality. Species survival is one possible value to have, but I don't know anyone (including Nietzsche) who advocates it as the basis for morality. This is not to say they don't exist, only that they are minor exceptions.
I'd like to see this evidence. if it's something more than the "answers in Genesis" website or something similar, then by all means show me. I've already seen that and "Dr. Dino," and they are lacking.
The fact is that these types of evidence do not stand up to scrutiny in the peer review process. There is no conspiracy by secular science to subvert YEC, there is simply insufficient evidence as compared to that of the universe being some 13.7 billion (or so) years old and the Earth being more than 4 billion years old. I believe this because I trust the peer review process.
You'll have to talk to cosmologists and geologists about that.
I asked:
Luke answered:
I agree, I would just avoid the use of the word "sin." I don't think that our "sins" have implications beyond the ones that arise in interpersonal relationships and society in general. This does not make them les important to me, however. I think it is supremely important not to harm each other, and strive to avoid doing so.
We need saving from our bad tendencies to harm. I don't believe in a Hell, heaven, or any possibility of life after bodily death. The conscious awareness that my brain makes possible cannot continue when the brain no longer functions. this does not mean I have license to do whatever I want so long as I don't get caught. I am no more permitted to do whatever i want than anyone else. I don't simply do whatever I want because I recognize it would be disastrous for everyone to act this way, and I don't consider myself to be an exception to the rule. I don't grant my own will more importance than I grant yours, so long as you are not hurting myself or others.
Perhaps. The effects of dark energy are a hot topic in science right now. We, frankly, do not know yet what will happen with the universe concerning gravity and so forth. Left unchecked? Is there something we can do to prevent the universe from collapsing it it were to be the causal result of the universe's current state?
I'm more interested in the opinion of experts in cosmology/astrophysyicists than mine concerning this issue.
---
I don't know what else to say. If this guy is genuine, he seems particularly self-deluded.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.