Is there a spiritual dimension to atheism?

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

To be fair, atheists include amongst their number some whose only reason for "atheism" is teenage rebellion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would think rebellion is as good an reason as any to reject religion. What percentage of early-start humanists have hormones to thank for their sanity?

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

To be fair, atheists include amongst their number some whose only reason for "atheism" is teenage rebellion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Definitely, to be fair it does work both ways. In fact I think the fact that so many people are teenage atheists siphons a lot of its credibility among the religous, e.g. "I was once like you"

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

I would think rebellion is as good an reason as any to reject religion. What percentage of early-start humanists have hormones to thank for their sanity?

Couldn't say, of course. There's a difference, though, between people who intellectually decide to be atheists in their teens, and those whose atheism is only a rejection of their parent's atheism. I think most of the latter become theists again, and do the annoying thing:

Son Goku wrote:

Definitely, to be fair it does work both ways. In fact I think the fact that so many people are teenage atheists siphons a lot of its credibility among the religous, e.g. "I was once like you"

that Son Goku points out.

Mind you, a lot of theists who say that actually mean "I didn't think about God" rather than anything else - an equally irritating and fellatious (sic) assumption about what drives atheists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

A lot of theists are educated and are very critical of other things outside religion, some are even very critical of the establishment of the church itself. So I don't know where you get that from.

Correct, not all reasons always apply. However, that said, I do find a lot of fanatic or fundamentalist Christians are quite poorly educated in Science for example.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote:

I suppose "spiritual" could have been the wrong word. I'd generally associate it with a feeling of connection with something beyond yourself (namely God for me). But do atheists feel a special link with the human race for example, and inspiration to work for the betterment of others as well as oneself, as opposed to an inspiration to work for a supreme being.

Sounds about right for me I guess
I suppose compassion is a main point of my religion anyway though

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Correct, not all reasons always apply. However, that said, I do find a lot of fanatic or fundamentalist Christians are quite poorly educated in Science for example.

Fair enough, but just because you are poorly educated in Science doesn't mean you aren't very well educated in other fields such as politics, history, and theology for example, as a lot of theists I know would be. Atheists could be terrible in these fields, but that doesn't mean that they are poor at critical thinking. So personally I would be critical (ironically for a theist apparently) of your viewpoint for that reason.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Fair enough, but just because you are poorly educated in Science doesn't mean you aren't very well educated in other fields such as politics, history, and theology for example, as a lot of theists I know would be. Atheists could be terrible in these fields, but that doesn't mean that they are poor at critical thinking. So personally I would be critical (ironically for a theist apparently) of your viewpoint for that reason.

What part of my viewpoint? More information please.

robindch

There's a difference between acquiring information (the nub, for example, of history, politics etc) and the fine art of critical thinking (which attempts to assess competing truth-claims). The former is mostly concerned with Content, while the latter mostly relates to Form. They're diff'rent things.

Scofflaw

Perhaps it's worth expanding slightly on what robin is saying, before this turns into one of those "theists are silly, atheists are silly" fights?

The arts are very different from the sciences, and the role of "critical thinking" in each is quite different. Both deal with the assessment of competing claims, but the methods of comparison are quite different, and the intellectual frameworks in which those comparisons are made are also quite different.

The Arts are, to a large extent, rationalist where the sciences are empiricist. In the Arts, interpretation and the strength of logical argument are key features, and all evidence requires interpretation. Evidence in the Arts, therefore, assumes a sort of subsidiary role, because it is open to many interpretations.

If we take a shard of pottery, for example, we might say that it was part of a container - but that is an assumption based on its shape etc. If we have a container, we might say that it is a pot - but even that word assumes a certain functional interpretation. Let's assume that it shows no traces of contents. Perhaps it is a funerary urn? Doesn't contain ashes? No matter - perhaps it was intended as a funerary urn. Does that mean the people concerned venerated their dead? Was the container traded for, or made locally?

So, from a single shard of pottery, we have come a very long way. If we try to make whatever story we are spinning match the evidence of another shard of pottery 100 miles away, there is really very little to stop us.

How does this happen? It happens because the arts are primarily concerned with the study of humanity and human artefacts, and with making our way through what we know to be the rich tapestry of human history and endeavour using only tiny scraps of thread, each of which is unique. The resulting fields can hardly help but be dominated by interpretation.

The framework behind all such interpretative arts is now based largely on the general theory that the interpretation you come to is likely to result from unconscious biases, and that this will also impact your interpretation of the evidence - interpreting the pottery shard as evidence of trade and honouring the dead rather than local effort and materialism.

In the sciences, interpretation and the strength of logical argument are relevant, but the evidence is everything, and evidence can only be interpreted where you can draw a very short and solid line from fact to interpretation.

If a physicist measures a value for acceleration under gravity, that's all that happens. That figure is repeatable - the next physicist can do it, and the next. When a sedimentologist says that such and such a sedimentary structure can only result from a particular set of conditions, the matter is experimentally verifiable. Therefore, every time we see that structure, we know that the particular set of conditions must have been in place.

So, wind-formed dunes cannot have been formed underwater, because the characteristics of water and wind are too different to permit of such confusion. Similarly, sand and rock erode differently, so one cannot mistake an eroded rock surface for an eroded sand surface.

What cultural baggage, or unconscious biases, can one bring to the question of whether dunes formed under water or air? None.

Science therefore operates in an intellectual framework in which one interpretation of the evidence is correct, and others are not. To say that there "Islamic geology", or "feminist geology", in the sense that the same evidence is interpreted differently, but equally validly, is utterly foolish.

Therefore, when someone with a science background, and someone with an arts background, engage in "critical thinking" or "examine the evidence", they are approaching the matter under consideration from completely different angles, each appropriate for different tasks.

When we attempt to determine what the Bible means when it says something, the arts approach is usually more appropriate. However, that does not hold for matters of fact - whatever the author of Genesis may have meant, the physical evidence cannot be bent to fit that narrative, and that unbending truth is not a matter of interpretation, no matter what someone with a background in the arts might think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

robindch wrote:

There's a difference between acquiring information (the nub, for example, of history, politics etc) and the fine art of critical thinking (which attempts to assess competing truth-claims). The former is mostly concerned with Content, while the latter mostly relates to Form. They're diff'rent things.

Critical thinking very much falls in to politics and history as well I think you'll find. People debating the accuracy of whether events have occurred. Or enquiring into actions that have taken place. For example I can hold a critical viewpoint on the actions of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank by analysing human rights reports. Still requires a critical mind in the first place.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Critical thinking very much falls in to politics and history as well I think you'll find. People debating the accuracy of whether events have occurred. Or enquiring into actions that have taken place. For example I can hold a critical viewpoint on the actions of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank by analysing human rights reports. Still requires a critical mind in the first place.

Then why do you not bring this critical thinking to your own religion?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass, Can you answer my last post please?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Then why do you not bring this critical thinking to your own religion?

What makes you think I haven't ever employed critical thinking into Christianity? Sure I've questioned my beliefs before but the spiritual connection that I have had with God, alongside the fact that it is pretty possible for a supreme power to have done what he has done in Biblical accounts my faith has kept with me thankfully.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote:

What makes you think I haven't ever employed critical thinking into Christianity? Sure I've questioned my beliefs before but the spiritual connection that I have had with God, alongside the fact that it is pretty possible for a supreme power to have done what he has done in Biblical accounts my faith has kept with me thankfully.

So because a supreme power could possibly do supreme things, it must go from possible -> probable -> definitely true, and because some of those things may be true, all of them must be true, it must be the only power capable of doing such things, and it's therefore worth a lifetime of worship...

robindch

Critical thinking is equally applicable in politics and history, but frequently ignored in order to propagate or validate one viewpoint or another, usually one in which the propagator has invested significant time and energy. History and politics and many other topics also often seek an agreed "interpretation" which isn't much different from an opinion on whatever's up for discussion. This is far less common in science and engineering where one must eventually submit to nature as judge. One can't "interpret" an airplane up into the sky, for example.

In your second point about the IDF, you're mixing up the epistemological meaning of the word "critical" (implying systematic thought) with the more normal daily usage (implying disapproval of). One can be critical, for example, of medical science, while approving of it.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Reason 6:
Poor education or not very good at critical thinking.

Firstly you say that theists have a poor education and aren't good at critical thinking.

Tim Robbins wrote:

However, that said, I do find a lot of fanatic or fundamentalist Christians are quite poorly educated in Science for example.

Then you say this. Just because you have met some fanatic and fundementalist Christians who do not have a knowledge in Science doesn't mean that they could not be very well educated in other fields. It's not a crime not to pursue a career in science you know. This is where I think your viewpoint is fundementally flawed. That is like saying that atheists aren't well educated because a few of them don't have a decent education in modern politics.

(again using the critical mind that theists aren't supposed to have)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

What makes you think I haven't ever employed critical thinking into Christianity?

Other than the fact that you are still a Christian ...

Seriously though, I've had discussions with you Jakkass about various aspects of Christian belief and "critical thinking" was not the first thing that springs out from your posts... quite the opposite in fact, as demonstrated below

Jakkass wrote:

Sure I've questioned my beliefs before but the spiritual connection that I have had with God

Well there you go.

Why do you think that you actually have a spiritual connection with God in the first place. Have you not applied critical thinking to this, have you not considered the other (far more likely) explanations for what you experience?

I think the real barrier that stops theists from really applying critical thinking to their own religion is that they don't want to confront answers that they don't like.

Jakkass wrote:

, alongside the fact that it is pretty possible for a supreme power to have done what he has done in Biblical accounts my faith has kept with me thankfully.

Again, there you go

What makes you think anything in the Bible is actually true? That doesn't sound like critical thinking at all. In fact it sounds like wishful thinking in the extreme.

Why have you not applied critical thinking to the Bible?

But again you have a vested interest in wanting this stuff to be true. Which means that it is very hard for you to actually apply critical thinking to any of this, since I doubt you actually want to confront any uncomfortable conclusions from said critical thinking.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly you say that theists have a poor education and aren't good at critical thinking.

Not what the statement says - it says one possible reason people become theists is through "poor education or not [being] very good at critical thinking."

If you leave aside Christianity for a moment, surely this is one reason that you would see people worshipping idols or fetishes?

Jakkass wrote:

Then you say this. Just because you have met some fanatic and fundementalist Christians who do not have a knowledge in Science doesn't mean that they could not be very well educated in other fields. It's not a crime not to pursue a career in science you know. This is where I think your viewpoint is fundementally flawed. That is like saying that atheists aren't well educated because a few of them don't have a decent education in modern politics.

I think here TR quite specifically means "Creationists". To claim to be able to evaluate the evidence for Creation certainly does require scientific education.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Jakkass, would you be open to the possibility that perhaps I feel the same "spiritual connection" with God as you do, yet I simply don't recognise it as a "connection with God", but a normal, natural human feeling?

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly you say that theists have a poor education and aren't good at critical thinking.

Ugh, he said that a POSSIBLE REASON for one being a theist could be that they are poorly educated, the same way a possible reason for one being an atheist could be that they simply are an angsty teenager who wants to rebel to be "cool". He didn't say ALL theists were poorly educated.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly you say that theists have a poor education and aren't good at critical thinking.

Incorrect. I say that is one possible reason why Christians are Christians.
I clarified that comment so did other posters.

Then you say this. Just because you have met some fanatic and fundementalist Christians who do not have a knowledge in Science doesn't mean that they could not be very well educated in other fields. It's not a crime not to pursue a career in science you know. This is where I think your viewpoint is fundementally flawed. That is like saying that atheists aren't well educated because a few of them don't have a decent education in modern politics.

I was referring only to Science not to other fields. A good education in Science renders a fantactical viewpoint in Religion, God or Theology nigh impossible.
An education in many other fields, made not affect one's fanatical belief in God / Religion / Theology. I never said it did, so where do you disagree with me?

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

Ugh, he said that a POSSIBLE REASON for one being a theist could be that they are poorly educated, the same way a possible reason for one being an atheist could be that they simply are an angsty teenager who wants to rebel to be "cool". He didn't say ALL theists were poorly educated.

Thank you.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote:

Jakkass, would you be open to the possibility that perhaps I feel the same "spiritual connection" with God as you do, yet I simply don't recognise it as a "connection with God", but a normal, natural human feeling?

Yes I'm sure that God has tried to reach out to you before. You mightn't had chosen to accept it. That's perfectly valid. I know that it is a spiritual connection as it generally, only happens when I think of God or communicate to the divine in prayer, or read what God has passed down through scripture, or look around at His world and think of what He must had done to create it. It doesn't seem probable to me that it is yet another conspiracy.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I know that it is a spiritual connection as it generally, only happens when I think of God or communicate to the divine in prayer, or read what God has passed down through scripture, or look around at His world and think of what He must had done to create it.

Again that is completely devoid of critical thinking ... you are simply validating Tim's initial claim ...

Jakkass wrote:

It doesn't seem probable to me that it is yet another conspiracy.

And what do you think every other religion in the world that has ever existed was/is ... why do you think your religion is any more probable than any other religion (and there have been quite a few)?

philologos

I've asked myself if the feeling came from anything else. However the evidence, i.e it occurring when I read the Bible or try to communicate with God and look at the world around me, indicates that it is because of my faith that I have such a strong feeling in God deep down. If you got the same feeling every time you did these things you would also agree that it must be God that is driving it.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote:

I've asked myself if the feeling came from anything else. However the evidence, i.e it occurring when I read the Bible or try to communicate with God and look at the world around me, indicates that it is because of my faith that I have such a strong feeling in God deep down. If you got the same feeling every time you did these things you would also agree that it must be God that is driving it.

Only because you already think it's god, not necessarily because it is god.

I'm thinking about god => happy feeling

philologos

isn't as simple as a "happy feeling" bluewolf. It's a feeling of power and liberation, that I wouldn't have if I didn't have faith.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote:

isn't as simple as a "happy feeling" bluewolf. It's a feeling of power and liberation, that I wouldn't have if I didn't have faith.

I don't think you've tried being happy without your faith and without needing to feel it to be fulfilled, so I doubt you can really claim that
and no, an angsty "I questioned my faith once" definitely does not count since that would also be centred on the faith

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Yes I'm sure that God has tried to reach out to you before. You mightn't had chosen to accept it. That's perfectly valid. I know that it is a spiritual connection as it generally, only happens when I think of God or communicate to the divine in prayer, or read what God has passed down through scripture, or look around at His world and think of what He must had done to create it. It doesn't seem probable to me that it is yet another conspiracy.

Can you reply to my post 52 please?

JC 2K3

JC 2K3 wrote:

I asked once or twice on the Spirituality forum to define "spirituality"(As to be perfectly honest I haven't got a clue what the hell "spirituality", "spirits" or "spiritual dimensions" are supposed to mean), and the answer I got was basically unless I'd had a "spiritual experience" it was impossible to explain.

.