The direction of Athiesm/Agnosticism

Valmont

In moving away from defining the specifics of said terms, I'm interested in what direction people think athiesm/agnosticism will take in future years. As the progression of science has helped us to understand things previously explained by religion thus reducing our reliance on it, does anyone think that the athiest/agnostic stance (or non-stance however you look at it) could possibly take hold on a worldly scale? I haven't read his book, but I'm sure Richard Dawkins is contributing to this realisation.

Personally I can't really see an eventual world devoid of religion but in addition to what direction people forsee the athiest/agnostic ideolgy moving in, what direction would people like to see it taking?

A bit general I know, but couldn't hurt to discuss

Zombrex

Er .... north west ....




Sorry, had a bit of wine. I'm sure I will have a more interesting post after Christmas

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Er .... north west ....

Valmont

Wicknight wrote:

Er .... north west ....

I think my timing was off

Happy Christmas:p

pH

Valmont wrote:

Personally I can't really see an eventual world devoid of religion but in addition to what direction people forsee the athiest/agnostic ideolgy moving in, what direction would people like to see it taking?

The entire world devoid, perhaps not, but large parts of it yes.

The latest survey (from the Guardian 2 days ago) shows that 62% of the UK population are 'not religious'.

Religion does more harm than good - poll

The poll suggests, however, that in modern Britain religious observance has become a habit reserved for special occasions. Only 13% of those questioned claimed to visit a place of worship at least once a week, with 43% saying they never attended religious services.

Merry Christmas to everyone

Dades

Good post - will revert!

trinitylucan

I am a subscriber to the theistic worldview which I won't go into right now - I find the terms used to refer to faith too broad to be able to address accurately. Such as 'religious' - this term covers the expanse of the true believer communing with a personal deity to the fanatical crank that demands that everyone sees everything as they do.

What I would be interested in learning about is what is the eventual goal of atheism? I support the goal to free humanity from destructive lies that breed separation and intolerance but can atheism actually address the human need for a sense of purpose/meaning?

Once in work when I was a little moody and was again being slagged in a friendly way for being a believer I uncharacteristically responded in a similiar vein. Usually I endeavour to give a reason for the hope I have with genuine respect and grace but this one time I instead said something like - well lets look at your worldview then. It was an interesting conversation. The 3-4 colleagues that joined the conversation all of whom would describe themselves as non-religious/athiestic/agnostic/humanistic etc admitted that they hadn't really thought about it.

Its easier to destroy than to create. What I'd like to learn is, is there really a value in athiesm worth living by or is it a view of accepting the nothingness and futility and just 'eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die?'

pH

trinitylucan wrote:

Its easier to destroy than to create. What I'd like to learn is, is there really a value in athiesm worth living by or is it a view of accepting the nothingness and futility and just 'eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die?'

Atheism is not a belief system, there is no organised set of atheist 'beliefs'. All an atheist is saying is that "God doesn't exist"/"I don't believe in God".

As far as morals, atheists can get them wherever, all they are discounting is one particular source of morals 'Behave like this because it's what God wants, and if you don't he'll punish you'.

In many respects, being nice and moral solely because you fear God's punishment is not a very moral position to take. Atheists who behave well towards their fellow man are doing so out of a genuine compassion, whereas theists are behaving selfishly, behaving well solely because they fear punishment.

Zombrex

trinitylucan wrote:

What I would be interested in learning about is what is the eventual goal of atheism?

There is no goal of atheism, because as pH points out, it is not a belief system or a religion. Atheist is a description based on what someone believes (or to be more accurate, doesn't believe). It is like "vegaterian". Vegaterianism doesn't have a goal, though some vegaterians do.

Some (a lot?) of atheists think that religion is inherentily "bad news" when placed in too high a position of power in society, and therefore push for secular institutions such as government and law. I suppose this could be called a goal, a secular society. But it is not the goal of atheism, it is the goal of some atheists.

Other atheists don't give two hoots about this.

trinitylucan wrote:

I support the goal to free humanity from destructive lies that breed separation and intolerance but can atheism actually address the human need for a sense of purpose/meaning?

No, but then it doesn't try do (it doesn't try to do anything).

It is up to the person themselves, once freed of religion, to develop their new belief system. Lots of atheists would be secular humanists as well. That is getting closer to discussing the systems that an atheist can use. But not always, and I am reluctant to pigion hole atheists. Atheism simply means you don't believe in God. It doesn't really explain what you do believe in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29

trinitylucan wrote:

Its easier to destroy than to create. What I'd like to learn is, is there really a value in athiesm worth living by or is it a view of accepting the nothingness and futility and just 'eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die?'

Ok, a few points.

Firstly are you saying there is no value in "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die?" What if actually you do die tomorrow. Would it be of more "value" to have spent today being miserable alone in dark room whipping yourself with branches?

If one accepts that life is fininte and that this is it (and I would point out that not all atheists do), does it not make sense to make the best of this life, to try and live it as best you can and to enjoy it? Being miserable for your life on the promise of happiness in an after life, as some religions teach, is all a bit silly TBH.

Secondly, if you mean do atheists hold no value to life then that is completely wrong. Well again not wanting to pigion hole, some atheists might not. Some might be serial killers (as true with theists). But most that I know hold a very special value to life, even higher than theists.

As pH points out "Don't do this or God will punish you" is not a very "moral" system to hold to. The "Don't do this because it is wrong" is much better in my view, and that is the one that most atheists hold to.

And before you ask "How do you know it is wrong?" it is not necessary to be told something is immoral to believe it is so. Yes you can never know in a universal sense, since there is no universal morality. Morality (to a humanists at least) is a human construct. But it is also influenced by emotion and evolution. I don't need to be told that being mean to my sister is wrong. It is wrong for a number of reasons, the main one being that it upsets her. If a theists doesn't understand that, and believes it is wrong only because God wrote so in a book somewhere, then that is slighly worrying.

We could get into a big discussion about where morality comes from if it doesn't come from God. But to sum up, most atheists are not devoid of values or morals. In fact most of the atheists I know have thought about values and morals a lot, and have very defined ones.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Atheism is not a belief system, there is no organised set of atheist 'beliefs'. All an atheist is saying is that "God doesn't exist"/"I don't believe in God".

True. However, we are certainly identifiable as a group by virtue of that very assertion/rejection.

trinitylucan wrote:

What I would be interested in learning about is what is the eventual goal of atheism?

A very interesting question - although "atheism" cannot have goals in the sense that Catholicism can, for the reason given by pH.

I think the thread on Dawkins actually reflects, at heart, different conceptions of what atheists think we should be doing about the world - with respect to promoting atheism and/or attacking religion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

in reply to trinitylucan,

meaning is a purely human concept. we ascribe certain 'meanings' to objects. we have the ability to analyse things using our reason. for example, a hammer in itself is useless unless we put meaning to it. it could be seen as a tool to knock in a nail to some people, or as a weapon to others, or as a means to destroying something. but to any other animal it holds no meaning or use. it merely 'is'.

by the same token, there are objects that exist that have no 'meaning' behind them. what is the meaning behind an asteroid or a rock? what is it's use independent of the use humans may put to it? certainly it originated somewhere, but this does not give it meaning.

it would appear that there is some sort of complex inter-relation between all things in the universe. this may suggest at some sort of 'meaning' behind all existence. but unfortunately for that particular argument there are examples of life for life's sake. take the lichen. it lives for years sucking minerals out of a rock, but is part of no wider eco-system.

this begs the question, what makes us any different?

pH

pinksoir wrote:

take the lichen. it lives for years sucking minerals out of a rock, but is part of no wider eco-system.

Really! In this age of wikis and google you really should get your facts straight.

Lichen is its own mini ecosystem.

Wikipedia wrote:

Lichens are symbiotic associations of a fungus with a photosynthetic partner (called a photobiont or phycobiont) that can produce food for the lichen from sunlight. The photobiont is usually either green algae or cyanobacteria.

And part of a bigger one ...

Wikipedia wrote:

Lichens may be eaten by some animals, such as reindeer, living in arctic regions. The larvae of a surprising number of Lepidoptera species feed exclusively on lichens. These include Common Footman and Marbled Beauty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen

pinksoir

touché.

i could have left that out. more importantly though, do you see a meaning behind life independent of the one that we as humans put on it?

pinksoir

i mean to say, we have goals and aspirations that give our lives meaning. but give our lives meaning to us. not in the wider scheme of things.

joe_chicken

pinksoir wrote:

touché.

i could have left that out. more importantly though, do you see a meaning behind life independent of the one that we as humans put on it?

No...
We can't detach our perspective from the human condition - no matter how hard some people may try.

Funsterdelux

Is there something wrong with "Atheisms current heading", do we need to change course. Is there a preverbal Iceberg on the starboard side.

pinksoir

perhaps. there is no objectivity, only subjectivity. kant went into great detail with this.

but isn't it the goal of science to get an objective grasp on the universe? for example, we can understand quite well (well some can, I certainly can't!) the universe in terms of mathematics (relativity, quantum theory, etc) without experiencing it through the human condition.

pinksoir

Funsterdelux wrote:

Is there something wrong with "Atheisms current heading", do we need to change course. Is there a preverbal Iceberg on the starboard side.

i dunno. possibly not. but i think that it is important to constantly critically assess and analyse your position on things. it is what seperates science and religion.

joe_chicken

pinksoir wrote:

perhaps. there is no objectivity, only subjectivity. kant went into great detail with this.

but isn't it the goal of science to get an objective grasp on the universe? for example, we can understand quite well (well some can, I certainly can't!) the universe in terms of mathematics (relativity, quantum theory, etc) without experiencing it through the human condition.

No matter what kind of results we get with science, they still need to be interpreted by us.

i.e. We may be able to study things we can't see, but only as a result of their effects on things we can.

Our senses have only evolved to help us survive on this planet, only 5 ways to view the universe... what if our senses are as limited as the size of our planet?

Scofflaw

pinksoir wrote:

i mean to say, we have goals and aspirations that give our lives meaning. but give our lives meaning to us. not in the wider scheme of things.

Makes sense, though - that's where the meaning's needed, isn't it? Besides, how does being part of God's plan give one meaning? Surely it reduces you to a mere bit-actor in God's play?

Funsterdelux wrote:

Is there something wrong with "Atheisms current heading", do we need to change course. Is there a preverbal Iceberg on the starboard side.

Certainly there'll be trouble when it starts talking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

indeed our senses are limited. it's easy to think of animals that have higher evolved senses than ours - a cats eyesight, a dogs smell/hearing. and even to find animals that have different types of senses, ie a bat.

but isn't maths an attempt at understanding independent of perception? we understand what a million is, but certainly have never seen a million things, each as individual entities, so as to form that concept.

i dunno. it seems that science (so far) can't really support any ideas about there being meaning, on a grand scale, behind the universe and life itself. other than the personal of course. religion for most of it's history attempted to illustrate a 'meaning' behind life, which is essentially metaphysical. but with the advancement of science, especially since the enlightenment, metaphysics has been abandoned by the educated and even liberal clergy who acknowledge that religion would no longer appeal to the educated...

pinksoir

Scofflaw wrote:

Makes sense, though - that's where the meaning's needed, isn't it? Besides, how does being part of God's plan give one meaning? Surely it reduces you to a mere bit-actor in God's play?

yep. couldn't agree more.

pH

joe_chicken wrote:

Our senses have only evolved to help us survive on this planet, only 5 ways to view the universe... what if our senses are as limited as the size of our planet?

Oh go on then amaze me, what 5 ways do we have to view the universe?

pinksoir wrote:

touché.

i could have left that out. more importantly though, do you see a meaning behind life independent of the one that we as humans put on it?

As for the meaning of Life? I doubt this thread will provide the breakthrough mankind has been waiting for.

I've seen it argued convincingly that:

A/ Life has no meaning (ie. no hidden goal we should be seeking).

B/ The meaning of life is reproduction.

C/ Meaning is a human concept, and anyone can give their life meaning by using it to achieve something worthwhile, for themselves or humanity.

take your pick.

However the idea that the meaning of life on this planet is some sort of 70 year long test of our goodness/badness, on which we will be judged by a creator God, and on his decision rests the fate of our eternal soul, is quite frankly silly beyond words.

pinksoir

i already put forward my position on the 'meaning' of life, though i use the term loosely. by the way A, B and C are all compatible with one another. the purpose of our existence is reproduction, meaning is a human construct and there is no grand underlying meaning behind existence. why pick?

i was asking you what your position was.

joe_chicken

pH wrote:

Oh go on then amaze me, what 5 ways do we have to view the universe?

Seriously?

If you're not joking, you really need to get out in the fresh air a little more.

pH

joe_chicken wrote:

Seriously?

yes

If you're not joking, you really need to get out in the fresh air a little more.

Come on now, you have some deep insight into all this based on us having only 5 ways to view the universe, I'm just wondering what these 5 ways are. Don't be shy, share with us our only 5 ways to view the universe, I mean you say there's specifically 5, not 6 or 8 or 23, so you must be able to tell me what they are.

And I really hope you're not going to make a complete fool of yourself by claiming that we have 5 senses, because as far as I know the only people who believe that are those that claim that their '6th' sense is special (yes you know who you are).

joe_chicken

pH wrote:

And I really hope you're not going to make a complete fool of yourself by claiming that we have 5 senses....

I'll get my coat then. How foolish of me.

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

I'll get my coat then.

Get mine while your at it.

Zombrex

The "5 senses" is a rather out of date concept define before people had a proper think about the subject.

Wikipedia lists 9 (Vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, tactition, thermoception, thermoception, equilibrioception, proprioception) and there can be many more depending on how one defines a "sense"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

None of this is particularly important to joe_chicken's point. 5 senses or 100 senses there are still phenomena in science that humans cannot directly experience.

But of course a counter to that is that we as humans are very good at developing machines that can transfer the information from these phenomena into a form that we can actually understand (most of the time some form of display).

trinitylucan

pH wrote:

In many respects, being nice and moral solely because you fear God's punishment is not a very moral position to take.

Yes I agree with that logic - it isn't theologically accurate though. Believers are exempt from punishment (salvation) and the motivation to love others is encouraged because this is how the ultimate wisdom acts so it logically follows that the believer should endeavour to imitate God. This is a bit of a cold motivation and as we are not robots its more likely the response is prompted out of a desire to please/serve

Wicknight wrote:

There is no goal of atheism, because as pH points out, it is not a belief system or a religion

I'm not sure I follow this - is this not a semantic difference? I accept there is no agreed order to atheism with a list of views but that one fundamental 'belief' that there is no God has far reaching ramifications for understanding life, the universe & everything.

The one ramification I wanted to explore is the question of meaning/purpose

Wicknight wrote:

Would it be of more "value" to have spent today being miserable alone in dark room whipping yourself with branches?

Hilarious view of the alternative to hedonism:) I'm not suggested some Dan Brown-like self-mortification as the purposeful use of our time. Its not that I want to deprive myself of the joys of life its that I want more and I'm not satisfied with the fulfilling of the 'desires of the flesh' only. Theres some CS Lewis quote to that effect about true fulfillment. I think there is a common misconception that theism = deprived of fun stuff and atheism = freedom to enjoy all whereas I believe the reverse to be true, the true pleasures of life are found in finding a sense of purpose in harmony with the creator.

I appreciate that many people hold values/morals without the motivation of wanting to abide by a religious view so the presence of values/morals does not always follow that these views have the same source.

pinksoir wrote:

meaning is a purely human concept. we ascribe certain 'meanings' to objects. we have the ability to analyse things using our reason

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense to me. It sounds like pride to want to have 'meaning' as if to leave a lasting legacy. Maybe the question I have is a question of self-consciousness. Theists view is that I seek a sense of meaning because I am self-conscious because God created me in his image.


happy new yr to you all. I don't think I'll have time to continue posting

Zombrex

trinitylucan wrote:

I'm not sure I follow this - is this not a semantic difference? I accept there is no agreed order to atheism with a list of views but that one fundamental 'belief' that there is no God has far reaching ramifications for understanding life, the universe & everything.

It does, but that isn't a goal.

For example being a vegaterian has far reaching ramifications for how someone lives their life, but vegaterianism doesn't have a goal that it attempts to promote or that one must subscribe to. You either eat meat or you don't. Likewise with atheism you either believe in God or you don't.

Atheist is a description of what someone doesn't believe in (ie God). In fact a description is only really needed because so many people do believe in God, so being an atheist is kinda different, just like being a vegaterian.

If everyone was vegaterian, or atheist, it would just be how everyone is. We aren't constantly pointing out that someone isn't a vegaterian, and likewise we aren't constantly pointing out that someone isn't an athiest. It is the default stance for a lot of people.

trinitylucan wrote:

The one ramification I wanted to explore is the question of meaning/purpose

Ok, but I wouldn't get confused with goals, or treat atheism as some kind of unified movement.

trinitylucan wrote:

I'm not satisfied with the fulfilling of the 'desires of the flesh' only.

If by "desires of the flesh" you mean eating unhealthily simply for the momentary pleasure of taste (ie eating only Mars bars) I would imagine neither are most atheists. Well maybe the very fat ones do.

trinitylucan wrote:

Theres some CS Lewis quote to that effect about true fulfillment. I think there is a common misconception that theism = deprived of fun stuff and atheism = freedom to enjoy all whereas I believe the reverse to be true, the true pleasures of life are found in finding a sense of purpose in harmony with the creator.

Well being a theist you probably would

If on the other hand you don't believe "the creator" exists then attempting to find a purpose within that framework would be rather silly. That doesn't mean atheists don't attempt to live full, fulfilling and important (even just to themselves) lives.

It seems to be a common theme when trying to explain to a theist what atheism is that the theist cannot view life as having any meaning or purpose if that mean or purpose is not some how channelled through a religous frame work, ie "Doing Gods work".

I'm not quite sure how to explain that it is possible, other than to just say "trust me"

Say for example a teacher. If the teacher loves teaching, and finds it fullfilling that they are helping children shape their future, hopefully inspiring a future generation to go to good things, I think we can all agree that that is a worthy dedication to life. So where does God come in? It is possible that the teacher does this because of a religious devotion, or some following of a religious message in the Bible or Qua'ran. But equally that is not necessary. The teacher can be doing this because they simply find it rewarding, on its own, without need to be told it from a religion. Therefore the teacher could be atheist or theist, it doesn't really matter. If she is an athiest she doesn't have less of a rewarding life or career.

Son Goku

joe_chicken wrote:

No matter what kind of results we get with science, they still need to be interpreted by us.

i.e. We may be able to study things we can't see, but only as a result of their effects on things we can.

Our senses have only evolved to help us survive on this planet, only 5 ways to view the universe... what if our senses are as limited as the size of our planet?

If these entities cannot be detected by our senses nor be detected by any machine we could ever construct, then they will never have any effect on us. We would never be able to interact them, making discussions on them pointless.

Besides there is a significant amount of science which has no interpretation.

Considerations like this never lead anywhere. If our science was so limited why can it plot the evolution of the universe since its "birth"?

pH

Back to the 'Direction of Atheism'

This situation gives rise to a New Year's prediction that 2007 will see an intensified war of religion in America, or, perhaps more accurately, a war of the religious against the irreligious, and why that should be happening just now is an important sign of the times, a reflection of our moment in history.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/02/news/letter.php

Atheists have generally tended to live their lives quietly inside the comfortable cocoon of their secular community, in which, say, a blessing before dinner, or some remark about Jesus' love would be about as chic as cappuccino made with instant coffee.

Nice

bonkey

trinitylucan wrote:

one fundamental 'belief' that there is no God has far reaching ramifications for understanding life, the universe & everything.

The one ramification I wanted to explore is the question of meaning/purpose

Perhaps you could explain the ramifications as you see them?

The way I see it is as follows :

---

Theist : The universe exists because God wants it to. The meaning of our existence is defined by God. We can neither know nor understand these meanings and purposes, but trust in God.

Theist (paraphrased) : We've no idea what the meaning/purpose is, but trust that God does, and therefore that meaning/purpose exists.

Atheist : The universe exists. Make of it what you will.

Atheist (paraphrased) : We find meaning/purpose for ourselves because thats all we can do.

---

From my perspective, neither side really knows anything about what the grand all-spanning meaning/purpose is (if such meaning/purpose is), but the atheists aren't delegating the problem.

I see no other ramifications....and I don't think this is the major one