ChatterBank0 min ago
Religion for Athiests
102 Answers
In his new book of this title (Hamish Hamilton), Alain de Botton writes that 'atheism should not hector people about the error of super-natural belief: this is "boring". The real task is to recycle elements of religion for secular use. These elements must be "dislodged from the supernatural structure within which they were first conceived" It is not just ideas that must be dislodged, but the practices that ground them. We need ways of reminding ourselves of our ideals and frailties. All of culture should serve this end.'
He implies that this must be done in a spirit of emotionally intelligent playfulness, only by such methods can we rebuild from the ruins of religion.
Is this approach worthy of consideration, or should religious observance remain within inherited, authoritative traditions?
He implies that this must be done in a spirit of emotionally intelligent playfulness, only by such methods can we rebuild from the ruins of religion.
Is this approach worthy of consideration, or should religious observance remain within inherited, authoritative traditions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro, I think that you are making a flawed assumption if you think that because someone does not believe in god then they must be materialist. You have implied several times on AB that people are too simplistic in using logic which only accepts a yes or no answer and that these are the extremes of a spectrum of possibilities. In assuming that atheists must be materialists because they don't believe in a deity you too are being simplistic. I don't think lack of belief in god rules out the possibility of appreciating literature, art or music. I would consider myself a materialist but only in the sense that everything we are aware of is connected to the material world, yet I do appreciate various genres of the arts. Whether or not music art or literature is 'spiritual' would make a good discussion.
@ Khandro - what naomi and jomifl said.
Being an atheist does not automatically mean that you are incapable pr more accurately insensible of the beauty, the majesty of the world and universe that surounds us.
Those with religious sensibilities have suggested this, but the only area where an atheist may be deaf and blind to the spiritual is in those exclusively religious areas. I can appreciate and be emotionally moved by the majesty of Mozarts reqiuem, for example, but unmoved by the sight of evangelical christian believers speaking in tongues, or a supposedly charismatic preacher exhorting his congregation.
De Bottons thesis - and remember, he professes atheism - is that the religious structures we have constructed around the notion of god over the years could somehow benefit mankind, absent the actual god themselves. I see nothing that we do not already have within a secular society.
Being an atheist does not automatically mean that you are incapable pr more accurately insensible of the beauty, the majesty of the world and universe that surounds us.
Those with religious sensibilities have suggested this, but the only area where an atheist may be deaf and blind to the spiritual is in those exclusively religious areas. I can appreciate and be emotionally moved by the majesty of Mozarts reqiuem, for example, but unmoved by the sight of evangelical christian believers speaking in tongues, or a supposedly charismatic preacher exhorting his congregation.
De Bottons thesis - and remember, he professes atheism - is that the religious structures we have constructed around the notion of god over the years could somehow benefit mankind, absent the actual god themselves. I see nothing that we do not already have within a secular society.
I think there is some confusion here about the definition of 'materialism' and 'materialistic'. The former, and true meaning used within a philosophical context, means to believe nothing exists but matter and its movements and modifications. The latter is often used in a pejorative way to imply a preference for material possessions. Your love of Mozart has absolutely nothing to do with it, having no more spiritual significance than your passion for fine wines and Belgian chocolates.
Khandro, I don’t believe there has been any confusion about the meaning of ‘materialistic’. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary your definition hits the spot. However, coming from someone who appears to profess some considerable expertise on the nature of spirituality, together with an acute awareness of those who must necessarily be in possession of it, or otherwise, your declaration that a ‘love of Mozart has absolutely nothing to do with it’, surprises me. I am frequently moved to tears by music – you might say it touches the ‘soul’ – whereas whilst I have a keen appreciation of fine wines and Belgian chocolate, neither has ever moved me to tears – unless, of course either has failed miserably to meet expectations – but that is a different thing entirely. ;o)
The sense of spiritual connection I have when singing with my friends is very strong. It is that same sense that many experience singing in church.
The church employs it as a vector to infect with their followers with the parasitic notions the church uses to control.
Despite being an atheist I have a strong sense of a greater consciousness. However, unlike the church, I don't see it as being our progenitor but a product of the consciousnesses nature built into organisms.
The church employs it as a vector to infect with their followers with the parasitic notions the church uses to control.
Despite being an atheist I have a strong sense of a greater consciousness. However, unlike the church, I don't see it as being our progenitor but a product of the consciousnesses nature built into organisms.
We have consciousness that is usually thought of as a product of the electrochemical reactions between the cells in our nervous system. I think that is simplistic and that the consciousness extends way down to the cellular level and not just in our nervous system.
Despite having no nervous system, let alone a brain, a single cellular organism (even a prokaryote) can make decisions to flee a predator, move toward food, exchange genetic material with another cell etc. To me this is some form of consciousness albeit relatively simple.
Our brain is not so impressively powerful because of computerlike interactions between the cells but as a product of the collective consciousness of all the cells in it. More like a giant parallel processor architecture with each cell as a processor than as a giant gate array forming a single processor as is the case in a computer. How else could our brains do so much with a clock speed of eight hertz?
BTW I also consider love to be the aspect of this consciousness that binds all our cells together. When we fall in love with another person that attraction is hapening at a cellular level. (Radical idea yes but quite a pleasant thought that those who have been deeply in love will comprehend I am sure.)
I also see the consciousnesss of all living things able to interact at levels that are ouside the familar interactions mediated by our nervous system.
This is what I mean by the universal conscious as a product of that provided by nature rather than the god type philosophy where the consciousness inexplicably existed before anything. It makes a lot more sense to me because the universe is perfectly able to build up the incredible complexity we see from the simple interactions of the most basic laws of physics.
God mentalities seem completely back to front and entirely lack any explanation of where the most complex thing in the universe has come from.
In my spirituality we can teach our own bulk consciousness to be affected by the collective consciousness. To some extent it already is in everyone but that performance can be enhanced. Even more radically I believe our thoughts can influnce those of others through that same medium.
When I do what some might think of as prayer it isn't to a god but to my own part of that universal consciousness such that I will make good decisions to be in the right place at the right time to intercept the things that I want.
Opportunities abound everywhere and we just need to let ourselves find them.
I contemplate so that I really know and feel what I want at the deepest level and allow myself to be guided. The hardest thing is to learn to let that happen and I missed many opportunities earlier in my life because I failed to take up what was right in front of me because I could not believe it would happen.
It works both ways. By letting myself be guided I also help fulfil the the wishes of the others who are surfing the waves of the collective conscious.
So you see, despite being very strongly atheistic I am far from materialistic. I think you will find this is quite common. Some countires have population where there is very little religion but actually have a majority of people who have a strong sense of spirituality.
For example look at the countries at the bottom of the first table on this page.
http://
Despite having no nervous system, let alone a brain, a single cellular organism (even a prokaryote) can make decisions to flee a predator, move toward food, exchange genetic material with another cell etc. To me this is some form of consciousness albeit relatively simple.
Our brain is not so impressively powerful because of computerlike interactions between the cells but as a product of the collective consciousness of all the cells in it. More like a giant parallel processor architecture with each cell as a processor than as a giant gate array forming a single processor as is the case in a computer. How else could our brains do so much with a clock speed of eight hertz?
BTW I also consider love to be the aspect of this consciousness that binds all our cells together. When we fall in love with another person that attraction is hapening at a cellular level. (Radical idea yes but quite a pleasant thought that those who have been deeply in love will comprehend I am sure.)
I also see the consciousnesss of all living things able to interact at levels that are ouside the familar interactions mediated by our nervous system.
This is what I mean by the universal conscious as a product of that provided by nature rather than the god type philosophy where the consciousness inexplicably existed before anything. It makes a lot more sense to me because the universe is perfectly able to build up the incredible complexity we see from the simple interactions of the most basic laws of physics.
God mentalities seem completely back to front and entirely lack any explanation of where the most complex thing in the universe has come from.
In my spirituality we can teach our own bulk consciousness to be affected by the collective consciousness. To some extent it already is in everyone but that performance can be enhanced. Even more radically I believe our thoughts can influnce those of others through that same medium.
When I do what some might think of as prayer it isn't to a god but to my own part of that universal consciousness such that I will make good decisions to be in the right place at the right time to intercept the things that I want.
Opportunities abound everywhere and we just need to let ourselves find them.
I contemplate so that I really know and feel what I want at the deepest level and allow myself to be guided. The hardest thing is to learn to let that happen and I missed many opportunities earlier in my life because I failed to take up what was right in front of me because I could not believe it would happen.
It works both ways. By letting myself be guided I also help fulfil the the wishes of the others who are surfing the waves of the collective conscious.
So you see, despite being very strongly atheistic I am far from materialistic. I think you will find this is quite common. Some countires have population where there is very little religion but actually have a majority of people who have a strong sense of spirituality.
For example look at the countries at the bottom of the first table on this page.
http://
@ Khandro - rather than you correcting us about our misunderstandings of spirituality - why dont you attempt to define exactly what emotions or feelings we are talking about - then perhaps we can have a discussion on a level playing field.
And, since you have read De Bottons book - what, exactly, does he think secular society can learn or positively use to improve society from religious rituals or structures that lose much of their supposed majesty and awe when you take their foundation, the heartstone of religion ie god or some other supernatural entity out of the equation? Because thats what De Botton is proposing isn't it? last time I checked, he professed an atheist worldview.
Lets have some specific examples of what positives you or he think religion could offer, that we do not get as a secular society right now.
And, since you have read De Bottons book - what, exactly, does he think secular society can learn or positively use to improve society from religious rituals or structures that lose much of their supposed majesty and awe when you take their foundation, the heartstone of religion ie god or some other supernatural entity out of the equation? Because thats what De Botton is proposing isn't it? last time I checked, he professed an atheist worldview.
Lets have some specific examples of what positives you or he think religion could offer, that we do not get as a secular society right now.
LG; //rather than you correcting us about our misunderstandings of spirituality// Where have I done this?
In my question, I first outline the position stated by A.de Botton, which I neither uphold or attack, and then ask a general question about religious observance.
beso; Thank you for your post; your veneration of consciousness as something more than "electrochemical reactions between the cells in our nervous system" is something with which I certainly concur. You seem to go further and to the edge of accepting the dualism of mind and matter by your attachment to a collective consciousness, but this still doesn't explain 'mind' and though we may now have a clearer understanding of 'how' some events happen it doesn't explain 'why' and leaves us in a world without direction or purpose; the cheerless world in which humanity was described by the philosopher Bertrand Russell as "The product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collisions of atoms". - Hardly stuff to set the heart ablaze !
In my question, I first outline the position stated by A.de Botton, which I neither uphold or attack, and then ask a general question about religious observance.
beso; Thank you for your post; your veneration of consciousness as something more than "electrochemical reactions between the cells in our nervous system" is something with which I certainly concur. You seem to go further and to the edge of accepting the dualism of mind and matter by your attachment to a collective consciousness, but this still doesn't explain 'mind' and though we may now have a clearer understanding of 'how' some events happen it doesn't explain 'why' and leaves us in a world without direction or purpose; the cheerless world in which humanity was described by the philosopher Bertrand Russell as "The product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collisions of atoms". - Hardly stuff to set the heart ablaze !
Khandro // though we may now have a clearer understanding of 'how' some events happen it doesn't explain 'why' and leaves us in a world without direction or purpose; the cheerless world in which humanity was described by the philosopher Bertrand Russell as "The product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collisions of atoms". - Hardly stuff to set the heart ablaze ! //
How or why these things of nature come about is absolutely no inhibitor on their ability to be appreciated. Indeed comprehending the genuine reality is far more fulfilling than any artificial sense of "purpose" invented just because some see it as pointless without some "higher" reason for it all.
Lack of direction? By our very existence we had the opportunity to give direction. You may insist on treading the beaten path insisted upon by religion but others of us relish in exploring the full potential of what being human has to offer.
Cheerless? There is plenty of cheer in the lives of the people I know and love and they have no need for religion or a god to bring it. In fact your claim is quite bizarre given the morbid obsession with death, sacrifice and rituals in the attitudes of those who follow religion.
I see no reason why a life without some kind of predestined outcome should be any less fulfilling. Quite the opposite, this life is what we make it and it is a joy to know that fact and get on with making it what we want rather than being forced to live a life as dictated by others.
That you would make such a claim strongly suggests there is a huge hole in your innate spirituality that is made to fit religion. It is there because religion insisted on clearing the way entirely bare to lay the foundations of its own edifice. Quite sad really.
How or why these things of nature come about is absolutely no inhibitor on their ability to be appreciated. Indeed comprehending the genuine reality is far more fulfilling than any artificial sense of "purpose" invented just because some see it as pointless without some "higher" reason for it all.
Lack of direction? By our very existence we had the opportunity to give direction. You may insist on treading the beaten path insisted upon by religion but others of us relish in exploring the full potential of what being human has to offer.
Cheerless? There is plenty of cheer in the lives of the people I know and love and they have no need for religion or a god to bring it. In fact your claim is quite bizarre given the morbid obsession with death, sacrifice and rituals in the attitudes of those who follow religion.
I see no reason why a life without some kind of predestined outcome should be any less fulfilling. Quite the opposite, this life is what we make it and it is a joy to know that fact and get on with making it what we want rather than being forced to live a life as dictated by others.
That you would make such a claim strongly suggests there is a huge hole in your innate spirituality that is made to fit religion. It is there because religion insisted on clearing the way entirely bare to lay the foundations of its own edifice. Quite sad really.
Thanks for rebutting the cheerless/pointless calumny in Khandro's last post, Beso. As for your earlier post, well, who would have thought that inside Beso there was a new age traveller bursting to get out?
Khandro, can you give me a specific example of a purpose in life which depends on a religious interpretation of the world. If I read the Bible there's the promise of eternal life when we can spend all our time praising God and the Lamb. St. John in Revelation portrays this stunted and masochistic view of human destiny with particulaly repellant force. The Koran, as you might expect, has a refreshingly more carnal view of human destiny: fine clothes, good nosh and young girls who haven't had it off with djinn or men. As far as the here and now are concerned, doesn't it occur to you that people who think this is the only life we've got might be more interested in making a go of things here than those who think of our worldly existence as a vale of tears?
Khandro, can you give me a specific example of a purpose in life which depends on a religious interpretation of the world. If I read the Bible there's the promise of eternal life when we can spend all our time praising God and the Lamb. St. John in Revelation portrays this stunted and masochistic view of human destiny with particulaly repellant force. The Koran, as you might expect, has a refreshingly more carnal view of human destiny: fine clothes, good nosh and young girls who haven't had it off with djinn or men. As far as the here and now are concerned, doesn't it occur to you that people who think this is the only life we've got might be more interested in making a go of things here than those who think of our worldly existence as a vale of tears?
