Atheism 2.0

[Dexter]

Would you consider Cynical Bastard as your user name?

If I was able to change my username, I would definitely do it.

Seriously, though, I just have such a strong feeling that a lot of this stuff simply comes down to the personalities we have. If we could do some kind of checklist of what we like and dislike, maybe something on the order of the Myers-Briggs (although I hate it), without mentioning religion/spirituality specifically, could we predict who would tend to favor the "spiritual" side? Such as: do you like to read poetry?; do you tend to get sentimental about things?; do you feel "moved" very often? Positive responses might describe those who tend to endorse some things about religion; negative responses might describe those who are more exclusively rationalistic or intellectual.

You're probably right about that.

[youkrst]

It's not that definitional and doesn't mean that we coalesce into a group for any particular purpose.

is that a bad thing?

i see your point but it raises another point.

do we want another "church" even if it is an atheistic church.

when humans codify stuff and organise it that seems to usually have a ruining or diluting effect to me because there is often an agenda involved, "the movement must go on, even at the cost of the things the movement itself espouses".

i wonder what would happen in a world where people just did what they felt like doing because it was enjoyable.

they might go into the garden and potter around a bit as a kind of ritual, but one they can do any damn way they please, including friends if they felt like it.

a lot of people feel afraid to be "just themselves" so that a group lends them feelings of value importance and belonging but what if just being a human was sufficient.

as soon as you feel part of a group what about those who are not "part of the group"

when the entire human race is the group i will join it

that creaking sound you can hear is the cogs in my brain trying to turn

[Robert Tulip]

De Botton is asking a basic question about achieving ethical goals. The church has the institutional machinery for change, but lacks what Leonard Cohen called the spiritual thirst. A problem de Botton identifies in atheism, seen in its cynicism about sermons, is that it lacks absolutes, so takes an essentially passive and relativist stance towards the great questions of the clash between good and evil.

By contrast, Christianity imagines an apocalyptic showdown in the last days between the Archangel Michael and Satan, somewhat like the battle in the movie The Matrix. This religious sense of good and evil coalescing towards a final conflict is something that rational thinking tends to find rather repugnant. Atheism poses the relativistic question of who decides what is good and what is evil, and how are we to tell that it is not evil posing as good. Christianity poses this same problem with its warning of false prophets.

I think what de Botton is getting at with his idea of an ethical atheism is a view that evidence-based logic is on the side of the angels, so to speak. If we believe that there actually is good and evil in the world, or at least that these concepts are useful organising principles, then we have something to learn from how religion has engaged with these big ideas. Alternatively, we can take the Alfred E Neumann atheist outlook to its logical conclusion and say it does not matter if humanity goes extinct.

[findsharon]

I'm with youkrst, but I guess to each his/her own. If people want to belong to an atheist church that's fine, but I feel compelled to point out one of the perks of atheism - going to the movies on Sunday morning. . . best prices, best audience! Try it. Someday you'll thank me.

I'll have to think about the comment regarding atheism's "passive and relativistic stance toward the great questions..." It seems too broad a generalization, or maybe being eclectic has made me sloppy. I don't have to accept Jesus to appreciate Kant.

[Robert Tulip]

I don't have to accept Jesus to appreciate Kant.

What this means is that it is possible to see morality as rational and necessary without acceding to a faith based vision that conflicts with evidence.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that there are absolute necessary truths of moral law, but he was widely regarded as an atheist for his demolition of the traditional so-called proofs of the existence of God. So Kantian morality does not entail acceptance of Christian dogma, especially of the irrational 'Personal Lord and Savior Go to Heaven If I Believe' variety.

But really, the patron saint of modern atheism remains David Hume, an extreme skeptic who held that no certainty is possible about anything. If we only rely on the evidence of our senses, Hume argued, we have no logical basis to assume the future will be like the past, and no logical basis to claim that any moral conclusion can be based on facts. For Hume, atheism meant an inexorable nihilism, the destruction of any logical certainty in regarding what is valuable or important. Without God, the modern scientific atheist Humean paradigm views all moral claims as mere expressions of sentimental preference, a line of thought that led directly to Ivan Karamazov's view that all is permissible in the atheist universe. This rational nihilism also influenced Stalin's desire to purge religion from Soviet life as an affront to reason.

De Botton is effectively calling for a new Kantian turn in modern atheism, a recognition of moral absolutes and necessary truths regarding ethical duty. Many atheists will not thank him for this call because it sounds to them too much like believing in Jesus.

It is true that you don't have to accept Jesus to appreciate Kant, but accepting Kant does lead to appreciating Jesus, if only as a moral myth.

[DWill]

It's not that definitional and doesn't mean that we coalesce into a group for any particular purpose.

is that a bad thing?

No, I don't usually think of it as a bad thing, but I guess I'm just a worrier. Also, see my signature line!

i see your point but it raises another point.

do we want another "church" even if it is an atheistic church.

when humans codify stuff and organise it that seems to usually have a ruining or diluting effect to me because there is often an agenda involved, "the movement must go on, even at the cost of the things the movement itself espouses".

i wonder what would happen in a world where people just did what they felt like doing because it was enjoyable.

they might go into the garden and potter around a bit as a kind of ritual, but one they can do any damn way they please, including friends if they felt like it.

a lot of people feel afraid to be "just themselves" so that a group lends them feelings of value importance and belonging but what if just being a human was sufficient.

as soon as you feel part of a group what about those who are not "part of the group"

when the entire human race is the group i will join it

that creaking sound you can hear is the cogs in my brain trying to turn

As bradams said, Jonathan Haidt talks about these dilemmas in the the new NF discussion book. Why don't you join us?

[DWill]

De Botton is asking a basic question about achieving ethical goals. The church has the institutional machinery for change, but lacks what Leonard Cohen called the spiritual thirst. A problem de Botton identifies in atheism, seen in its cynicism about sermons, is that it lacks absolutes, so takes an essentially passive and relativist stance towards the great questions of the clash between good and evil.

By contrast, Christianity imagines an apocalyptic showdown in the last days between the Archangel Michael and Satan, somewhat like the battle in the movie The Matrix. This religious sense of good and evil coalescing towards a final conflict is something that rational thinking tends to find rather repugnant. Atheism poses the relativistic question of who decides what is good and what is evil, and how are we to tell that it is not evil posing as good. Christianity poses this same problem with its warning of false prophets.

I think what de Botton is getting at with his idea of an ethical atheism is a view that evidence-based logic is on the side of the angels, so to speak. If we believe that there actually is good and evil in the world, or at least that these concepts are useful organising principles, then we have something to learn from how religion has engaged with these big ideas. Alternatively, we can take the Alfred E Neumann atheist outlook to its logical conclusion and say it does not matter if humanity goes extinct.

I don't see your last observation as pointing to something typical of atheists. I see some of the posters here being much in favor of colonizing space for the purpose of saving the species if we make a total hash of the planet. I admit that my own, peculiar, attitude about this prospect is, "Meh." Where I thought you were going with your thought was the tendency atheists may have to be pretty blase' about where the larger culture (what some might call the secular culture) is going. They are almost forced into laissez faire because to indicate that there are problems might be to give credence to the projects that religion has always had going to achieve the larger social aims that de Botton identifies in his talk. About that, I think atheists tend to echo our American saint, Alfred E. Neuman.

[bradams]

By the way, Sam Harris said he is writing a book called Waking Up: A Scientist Looks at Spirituality, which I am very interested to read.

I'm about to reveal my prejudices here, but if you want serious thinking about subjects like this then forget the scientists. They are too hedgehoggy to provide much insight. Stick with the philosophers. As David Stove once wrote

There are philosophers who have thought longer and better about the ethics of medicine than the professor of medicine ever had time to do. There are philosophers who have thought longer and better about the two-slit experiment than physicists have. There are philosophers who have thought longer and better about the foundations of mathematics than a mathematician is ever likely to do. And so on. I am conscious that a philosopher cannot say this of his profession without betraying a certain arrogance. Nevertheless it is literal truth. And it is a sufficient justification for the existence of a class of persons especially trained in philosophy.

Based on what I've read of Harris so far I sincerely doubt he'll do any better than a philosophical work like Robert Solomon's Spirituality for the Skeptic.

DWill, I'm planning to get involved in the Haidt book discussion.

[youkrst]

Jonathan Haidt talks about these dilemmas in the the new NF discussion book. Why don't you join us?

thanks, i was tempted, but it was a bit pricey for me and the photo on the website put me off a bit

i'll keep an eye on the discussion, fly on the wall style.

[Saffron]

...Seriously, though, I just have such a strong feeling that a lot of this stuff simply comes down to the personalities we have. If we could do some kind of checklist of what we like and dislike, maybe something on the order of the Myers-Briggs (although I hate it), without mentioning religion/spirituality specifically, could we predict who would tend to favor the "spiritual" side? Such as: do you like to read poetry?; do you tend to get sentimental about things?; do you feel "moved" very often? Positive responses might describe those who tend to endorse some things about religion; negative responses might describe those who are more exclusively rationalistic or intellectual.

Hey, here's something that connects to this thread and the one you will be discussion leader, The Righteous Mind. It is a TED talk by Jonathan Haidt. He makes the point that there are a set of personality traits that go with voting Dem and a set that goes with voting GOP. Without a doubt there are exceptions to his first example, but generally, I'd bet he is right.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... _mind.html

I think this might be my favorite TED talk.