Comments on: Tipping the Scales http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Wed, 7 Jan 2009 03:59:36 +0000 By: Peter Fahy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9960 Peter Fahy Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:20:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9960 I have had an excellent atheistic year. I have read Paine's Age of Reason three times, End of Faith by Harris and even Treatise On the Gods by Mencken, amongst many others. I must say that the biggest dogma in nearly all the atheist literature, apart from Harris, is the inabilty to consider metaphysics without God. The Greeks managed it and so do the Buddhists. The either/or thinking of Western atheists strikes me as lacking in real imagination- ie strong on logic and impoverished on vision. Dawkins (quite brilliant otherwise) doesn't see that Big Bang theory is as big a leap of faith as creationism. After the Big Bang moment the rest of Evolutionism is just process and dodgy at that. Maybe this is why Harris' book with its familiar arguments is so seductive, as it is colored by the author's abilty to grasp a greater reality. Creationism or Evolutionism? Give me a break. It's the old two party system again. I have had an excellent atheistic year. I have read Paine's Age of Reason three times, End of Faith by Harris and even Treatise On the Gods by Mencken, amongst many others. I must say that the biggest dogma in nearly all the atheist literature, apart from Harris, is the inabilty to consider metaphysics without God. The Greeks managed it and so do the Buddhists. The either/or thinking of Western atheists strikes me as lacking in real imagination- ie strong on logic and impoverished on vision. Dawkins (quite brilliant otherwise) doesn't see that Big Bang theory is as big a leap of faith as creationism. After the Big Bang moment the rest of Evolutionism is just process and dodgy at that. Maybe this is why Harris' book with its familiar arguments is so seductive, as it is colored by the author's abilty to grasp a greater reality. Creationism or Evolutionism? Give me a break. It's the old two party system again.

]]> By: Joe Hardwick http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9403 Joe Hardwick Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:51:32 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9403 Alex, Gods have to do with the content of thought, whereas what I referred to as “the real essence of religion” has to do with the attitude with which any content might be thought. The experience of the sacred is an important part of that. "If I can build on James’ definition of belief as “the mental state or function of cognizing reality,” I think a critical role of religion is to influence “the mental state or function of cognizing significance.” More to the point, to give a social definition of the significant; to make us feel, rather than just think, the importance of something. Belief isn’t a discreet quality that is either there or not. Objects of thought have different opacities of belief, and are more are less real. And those things are more real that have greater significance to us. Or, those things are more real that we “realize” the significance of. Another function of what I consider the essence of religion is the sense of the social group as a group, rather than a collection of individuals. This is why I said, in another post, that religion and politics are coextensive. Now, you may deny this function. Many people think that the “need to belong” is a sign of weakness. I believe that man is naturally gregarious and is driven and bound to tribes by a psychological organ that is as functional to its purpose as the heart or lungs are to the body. We want to be among others who “believe as we believe, who love the things we love and hate the things we hate.” [loosely how Isocrates describes “those people who are more truly Helas”] So, I see it as a collection of the modi operandi of the human psyche’s fundamental property of gregariousness and the means by which the group defines - and induces the experience of – the sacred. There was another discussion on this blog where someone said that certain ancients didn’t have any religion, and Ebon said he wasn’t sure that he agreed. Again, I think the difficulty of untangling the question is best resolved by separating the content of thought from the attitude with which it is thought. The ancients who had no word for it had no occasion for one…they didn’t have non-religion. The question of whether religion is inherently superstitious really comes down to whether the pronouncement and experience of anything (be it a principle, or whatever) as sacred requires a supernatural justification. If it does, then the religious are addicted to the superstition, and can never escape it. The only way you can abolish the old lies is to listen to Ebon’s Tempter, and come staggering out of the woods with a far off stare in your eyes, talking about “I have been to the mountain,” proceeding to replace one set of lies with another. Obviously, I don’t think things need to be contrary to reason and experience to warrant a declaration of sanctity, reverence or whatever you wish to call it. Is Nothing Sacred? “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only.”….Thomas Jefferson Our right to do that warrants a declaration of the sacred, and I feel a moral imperative to pronounce it so. The world has not seen religiously devout Liberty fanatics. Lovers of Reason are like the scattered members of some broken tribe and too often in the war for social consciousness they look like Antony riding out alone to face Octavian’s legions. Anyway, it looks like you are making me work again, Alex…shame on you. ;) Alex,
Gods have to do with the content of thought, whereas what I referred to as “the real essence of religion” has to do with the attitude with which any content might be thought.
The experience of the sacred is an important part of that.
"If I can build on James’ definition of belief as “the mental state or function of cognizing reality,” I think a critical role of religion is to influence “the mental state or function of cognizing significance.” More to the point, to give a social definition of the significant; to make us feel, rather than just think, the importance of something. Belief isn’t a discreet quality that is either there or not. Objects of thought have different opacities of belief, and are more are less real. And those things are more real that have greater significance to us. Or, those things are more real that we “realize” the significance of.
Another function of what I consider the essence of religion is the sense of the social group as a group, rather than a collection of individuals. This is why I said, in another post, that religion and politics are coextensive. Now, you may deny this function. Many people think that the “need to belong” is a sign of weakness. I believe that man is naturally gregarious and is driven and bound to tribes by a psychological organ that is as functional to its purpose as the heart or lungs are to the body. We want to be among others who “believe as we believe, who love the things we love and hate the things we hate.” [loosely how Isocrates describes “those people who are more truly Helas”] So, I see it as a collection of the modi operandi of the human psyche’s fundamental property of gregariousness and the means by which the group defines - and induces the experience of – the sacred.
There was another discussion on this blog where someone said that certain ancients didn’t have any religion, and Ebon said he wasn’t sure that he agreed. Again, I think the difficulty of untangling the question is best resolved by separating the content of thought from the attitude with which it is thought. The ancients who had no word for it had no occasion for one…they didn’t have non-religion.
The question of whether religion is inherently superstitious really comes down to whether the pronouncement and experience of anything (be it a principle, or whatever) as sacred requires a supernatural justification. If it does, then the religious are addicted to the superstition, and can never escape it. The only way you can abolish the old lies is to listen to Ebon’s Tempter, and come staggering out of the woods with a far off stare in your eyes, talking about “I have been to the mountain,” proceeding to replace one set of lies with another. Obviously, I don’t think things need to be contrary to reason and experience to warrant a declaration of sanctity, reverence or whatever you wish to call it.
Is Nothing Sacred?
“Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only.”….Thomas Jefferson
Our right to do that warrants a declaration of the sacred, and I feel a moral imperative to pronounce it so. The world has not seen religiously devout Liberty fanatics. Lovers of Reason are like the scattered members of some broken tribe and too often in the war for social consciousness they look like Antony riding out alone to face Octavian’s legions.
Anyway, it looks like you are making me work again, Alex…shame on you. ;)

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9400 Alex Weaver Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:47:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9400 So, Joe, what exactly do you think the "real essence of religion" is then, if gods aren't really relevant to it? (Or am I misreading it) So, Joe, what exactly do you think the "real essence of religion" is then, if gods aren't really relevant to it? (Or am I misreading it)

]]> By: Joe Hardwick http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9386 Joe Hardwick Tue, 07 Nov 2006 07:21:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9386 I'm with Chris. The tone of optimism is unrealistic. The west has been on this psycho-crack for some 2000 years. The youth is finally getting access to alternative "world views," but reversion is probable.Most people don't even know about the Enlightenment. Try to find an unabridged copy of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. Betcha can't do it. As I said in another post, I think most of you guys make a mistake in equating religion with theism. Religion is where people turn to meet very real needs, and Gods don't have to be at the center of a religion. However, "No-God" cannot be to focus of one. Seems like Englishmen getting together for "no-tea." Athiests, Agnostics and Poetic Pagans (for lack of a better term)could form a religion that would eventually exterminate the supernatural, if they shifted the focus from the childish theological issues to the real essence of religion. I'm with Chris. The tone of optimism is unrealistic. The west has been on this psycho-crack for some 2000 years. The youth is finally getting access to alternative "world views," but reversion is probable.Most people don't even know about the Enlightenment. Try to find an unabridged copy of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. Betcha can't do it. As I said in another post, I think most of you guys make a mistake in equating religion with theism. Religion is where people turn to meet very real needs, and Gods don't have to be at the center of a religion. However, "No-God" cannot be to focus of one. Seems like Englishmen getting together for "no-tea." Athiests, Agnostics and Poetic Pagans (for lack of a better term)could form a religion that would eventually exterminate the supernatural, if they shifted the focus from the childish theological issues to the real essence of religion.

]]> By: Brett http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9217 Brett Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:40:02 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-9217 I've heard similar things to Iranians I talk to. They've been beaten over the head with the Quran by Mullahs all their lives, and have seen the outside world on illicit satellite dishes and the internet that many are turning away from hard-core Islam, at least privately. Many drink, have sex, etc. It's still literally dangerous to apostacize in the Dar al-Islam, so it's a step in the right direction. I've heard similar things to Iranians I talk to. They've been beaten over the head with the Quran by Mullahs all their lives, and have seen the outside world on illicit satellite dishes and the internet that many are turning away from hard-core Islam, at least privately. Many drink, have sex, etc. It's still literally dangerous to apostacize in the Dar al-Islam, so it's a step in the right direction.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8950 Ebonmuse Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:41:18 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8950 Hitchens has always been an atheist, as far as I'm aware. I still intend to read his book debunking Mother Teresa's supposed acts of charity, even though I fully expect the factual arguments to be mixed with a generous helping of polemic. Hitchens has always been an atheist, as far as I'm aware. I still intend to read his book debunking Mother Teresa's supposed acts of charity, even though I fully expect the factual arguments to be mixed with a generous helping of polemic.

]]> By: Stephen Frug http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8948 Stephen Frug Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:03:02 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8948 Damn. <i>Hitchens</i> is about to join our side? Maybe I need to re-think my position... Damn. Hitchens is about to join our side?

Maybe I need to re-think my position...

]]> By: bassmanpete http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8762 bassmanpete Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:18:09 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8762 The older I get (now 62) the stronger my atheism becomes. Believers have faith because of fear & ego - fear that they'll face punishment in a supposed afterlife; and ego because they can't accept that they will one day cease to exist. I would say to them that when you die it's just like it was before you were born - so get used to it. It just makes me wonder where the human race could be today if all those billions of man-hours spent 'praising god' had been put to good use! Let's for a minute assume there is a god, wouldn't you think that he/she/it would prefer that we went out & appreciated & enjoyed the world that has been given to us rather than spend hours trying to suck up to to him/her/it in a church/synagogue/mosque or whatever then going out & cutting down forests for wood-chips, harpooning whales for 'scientific research', fighting with each other over whose belief is the 'right' one, etc, etc. That's my rant for today. Over & out. The older I get (now 62) the stronger my atheism becomes. Believers have faith because of fear & ego - fear that they'll face punishment in a supposed afterlife; and ego because they can't accept that they will one day cease to exist. I would say to them that when you die it's just like it was before you were born - so get used to it.

It just makes me wonder where the human race could be today if all those billions of man-hours spent 'praising god' had been put to good use! Let's for a minute assume there is a god, wouldn't you think that he/she/it would prefer that we went out & appreciated & enjoyed the world that has been given to us rather than spend hours trying to suck up to to him/her/it in a church/synagogue/mosque or whatever then going out & cutting down forests for wood-chips, harpooning whales for 'scientific research', fighting with each other over whose belief is the 'right' one, etc, etc.

That's my rant for today. Over & out.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8740 Alex Weaver Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:20:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8740 I would hardly call my rejection of religion a "rebellion"; there wasn't nearly enough resistance. And the appropriate response to that kind of sentiment is "I do indeed remember it with regret. Specifically, I regret waiting so long." ^.^ I would hardly call my rejection of religion a "rebellion"; there wasn't nearly enough resistance. And the appropriate response to that kind of sentiment is "I do indeed remember it with regret. Specifically, I regret waiting so long." ^.^

]]> By: Christopher http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8729 Christopher Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:36:05 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tipping-the-scales.html#comment-8729 Yes, ever since high school people have told me that one day I realize how I "scorned wisdom" and will "remember my rebelion against god with regret." Load of shit! I've turned my back on superstitions and am never going back! Yes, ever since high school people have told me that one day I realize how I "scorned wisdom" and will "remember my rebelion against god with regret."

Load of shit! I've turned my back on superstitions and am never going back!

]]>