More to atheism...?

Dades

pH wrote: »

I suppose it comes down on where you place yourself on the scale "religion is a harmless personal belief" to "Religion is the cynical manipulation of people's hopes and fears by self-interested parties for their own wealth, power and status"

I completely agree there's a "religion is a harmless personal belief" scale. It just seems like instead of the usual "I can't believe you believe in God" exclamations, now we're into the realm of "You don't believe in God - why aren't you condemning religion!"

I'm not saying that's my position btw - just that if someone wants to disbelieve and leave it that, good for them.

Gregor Samsa

Scofflaw wrote: »

That, I think, is a really excellent point. The world-perspective that atheism implies (?) is very different from that of theism, or that of materialistic ignorance.

While I agree that atheism in turn informs one's perspective on many other matters, it does not uniformly lead on to any particular perspective.

Both Karl Marx's Communism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, for instance, are atheistic philosophies that are pretty much incompatible on every other issue. And I disagree with both of them...

Also, I wouldn't say that atheism and "materialistic ignorance" are mutually exclusive at all. On its own, the term "atheism" doesn't imply a reason for disbelief. An individual's reason for not believing in god could simply be that they find the concept of god incompatible with their relentless pursuit of material gain. It might not be a *good* reason - but their reason nonetheless.

Personally, I see atheism as simply the removal of just another myth, that allows one to get on with the business of science, philosophy and ethics unencumbered by a false assumption. In the same way heliocentrism simply removes the myth that the Earth is the centre of the universe (read: solar system), and therefore allows one to get on with the business of cosmology.

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

I suppose it comes down on where you place yourself on the scale "religion is a harmless personal belief" to "Religion is the cynical manipulation of people's hopes and fears by self-interested parties for their own wealth, power and status"

I would place myself all along that scale, I think.

pH wrote: »

Take a quote from Scofflaw's post above which I think illustrates well the position I'm totally opposed to and find shocking:

There are also people who appear to require some form of enforced and determinate morality, and since I don't plan on offering them an alternative enforced and determinate morality, I prefer to leave well enough alone there too.

I just don't accept that these people exist, I don't feel I'm morally or intellectually superior to my fellow man, and certainly don't feel they're somehow better off in in the hands of Scientologists or the Catholic Church, or in fact whatever God-worshipping cult has god its hand on them.

I feel this position is just a small step away from some fairly sinister ideas about 'some' people needing various forms of mind controls 'for their own good' so to speak because they can't handle the real world like us really smart and well adjusted folks.

Hmm. Hopefully I can negotiate this slightly tricky topic without causing offence...

What you've said is contradictory, I think. You say you don't feel you're "morally or intellectually superior to my fellow man", yet you dismiss without hesitation their religion as "cynical manipulation of people's hopes and fears by self-interested parties for their own wealth, power and status".

To do so, you have to consider your fellow man as deluded, and you as not. In what way does this not constitute a position "morally or intellectually superior to my fellow man"? How is it that they are deluded, and you are not?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

phutyle wrote: »

While I agree that atheism in turn informs one's perspective on many other matters, it does not uniformly lead on to any particular perspective.

Both Karl Marx's Communism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, for instance, are atheistic philosophies that are pretty much incompatible on every other issue. And I disagree with both of them...

I would consider both of those as atheistic only in the sense that science is "atheistic" - they are theories that do not require gods (thus materialistic, rather than atheistic). There are Christian communists - and many followers of Ayn Rand's doctrines likewise consider themselves good fundamental Christians.

phutyle wrote: »

Also, I wouldn't say that atheism and "materialistic ignorance" are mutually exclusive at all. On its own, the term "atheism" doesn't imply a reason for disbelief. An individual's reason for not believing in god could simply be that they find the concept of god incompatible with their relentless pursuit of material gain. It might not be a *good* reason - but their reason nonetheless.

Indeed, it is often the only reason for atheism that the religious admit.

phutyle wrote: »

Personally, I see atheism as simply the removal of just another myth, that allows one to get on with the business of science, philosophy and ethics unencumbered by a false assumption. In the same way heliocentrism simply removes the myth that the Earth is the centre of the universe (read: solar system), and therefore allows one to get on with the business of cosmology.

Ah, the assumption of a mythos-logos opposition. Ah well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gregor Samsa

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would consider both of those as atheistic only in the sense that science is "atheistic" - they are theories that do not require gods (thus materialistic, rather than atheistic). There are Christian communists - and many followers of Ayn Rand's doctrines likewise consider themselves good fundamental Christians.

...which is why I specifically mentioned Marx and Rand as individuals, as opposed to just the philosophical movements they spawned. My point is that both of them *were* atheists (the beliefs of their followers doesn't matter), yet their world views were very different - just trying to counter the idea that atheism inherently leads on to any particular "world perspective".

I suppose I should have said something like:

"Both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, for instance, were atheists whose philosophies were pretty much incompatible on every other issue."

But for what it's worth, I've never come across someone who describes themselves as a "fundamental Christian" who is also a follower of Rand's - or visa versa. They might share some economic or anti-Socialist views, but that's where the crossover would abruptly end. Maybe you have had a different experience, though.

Scofflaw

phutyle wrote: »

...which is why I specifically mentioned Marx and Rand as individuals, as opposed to just the philosophical movements they spawned. My point is that both of them *were* atheists (the beliefs of their followers doesn't matter), yet their world views were very different - just trying to counter the idea that atheism inherently leads on to any particular "world perspective".

Ah. Hmm. I wouldn't consider either of those sets of views as "world perspectives" - they are both reactions to the atheist world perspective: that there are no 'higher powers', no externally imposed morality, no externally imposed meaning of life, no 'master plan', no 'judgment', no judge, just us - Nietzche probably expresses it best, because he expresses it poetically.

phutyle wrote: »

I suppose I should have said something like:

"Both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, for instance, were atheists whose philosophies were pretty much incompatible on every other issue."

But for what it's worth, I've never come across someone who describes themselves as a "fundamental Christian" who is also a follower of Rand's - or visa versa. They might share some economic or anti-Socialist views, but that's where the crossover would abruptly end. Maybe you have had a different experience, though.

American sites...to be fair, they were the kind of people who are completely capable of holding two conflicting points of view simultaneously.

cordially,
Scofflaw