What can religion teach atheists?

[tinker683]

That humanity isn't perfect and will always strive, in our most imperfect of ways, to strive to be better

Edit: Sure, you don't NEED religion to learn that lesson, but I can't think of a larger group of imperfect people who strive (often badly) to be better

 

[Lark]

There's a lot that it can, if you want to get an idea then read either The Dogma of Christ or You Shall Be Gods by Erich Fromm, he was an athiest who really appreciated religion.

 

[Coriolis]

Right. Guidelines on how to navigate lifes travails, 'best practices'.

Did you watch the video? What do you think about his view on original sin?

Finally watched this. I suppose his interpretation of original sin comes close to what I was thinking - our inherent imperfection - but he presents it as a need, for instruction/guidance on how to live life because we aren't born automatically knowing.

As I listened to him enumerate the things that religions are particularly good at, and eventually making the comparison with multinational corporations, I thought of another institution that does many of the same things well: the military. They have excellent training, strong organization, plenty of things that appeal to the senses, plenty of rituals and ceremonies, and foster a sense of community among otherwise disparate individuals.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Finally watched this. I suppose his interpretation of original sin comes close to what I was thinking - our inherent imperfection - but he presents it as a need, for instruction/guidance on how to live life because we aren't born automatically knowing.

As I listened to him enumerate the things that religions are particularly good at, and eventually making the comparison with multinational corporations, I thought of another institution that does many of the same things well: the military. They have excellent training, strong organization, plenty of things that appeal to the senses, plenty of rituals and ceremonies, and foster a sense of community among otherwise disparate individuals.

The highlighted especially is why I like Alain's stuff so much. I think the "inherent imperfection" plus original sin go hand in hand from a psychological perspective. No one escapes childhood, socialization and adolescence without some baggage or distortion and that through reflection on 'Why people do the things that they do' we are encouraged to become more self aware. Religious sermons abound with narratives that attempt to teach us something about how these 'imperfections' lead to X outcome.

 

[Lark]

Finally watched this. I suppose his interpretation of original sin comes close to what I was thinking - our inherent imperfection - but he presents it as a need, for instruction/guidance on how to live life because we aren't born automatically knowing.

As I listened to him enumerate the things that religions are particularly good at, and eventually making the comparison with multinational corporations, I thought of another institution that does many of the same things well: the military. They have excellent training, strong organization, plenty of things that appeal to the senses, plenty of rituals and ceremonies, and foster a sense of community among otherwise disparate individuals.

As I understand it original sin is about doubt, or deficit, as such its possible to conceive of it in psychological terms as to do with attachment, relating, explanatory style etc.

I'll always believe in it in the greater religious sense but its interesting to see that the tradition is honoured in some ways if not all.

The beginning of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army was pretty good, in fact that entire film is good but the beginning tells a fable about mankind versus older mythical races, mankind has a "hole" in them which they can not fill, the other races do not, it can been seen as the "God shaped hole in each of us" but it equally could be seen as to do with attachment and relating, in any case it results in the rival modes of existence, highlighted most ably by Erich Fromm, as I've said a religious traditions influenced psychologist, those of having and being. In the movie it results in a war between the human race and the others when they sort of have enough of humanitys not dealing with their shit.

 

[Lark]

I'm not trying to be "sectarian" here but in my experience I tend to find a lot of atheists are unimaginative and proud about that, the divisions between negative theology in traditions right from Moses Maimonades (spelling) versus (mystical) Kabbalah in some ways I think are reproduced now between atheism and alternatives.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

As I understand it original sin is about doubt, or deficit, as such its possible to conceive of it in psychological terms as to do with attachment, relating, explanatory style etc.

I'll always believe in it in the greater religious sense but its interesting to see that the tradition is honoured in some ways if not all.

The beginning of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army was pretty good, in fact that entire film is good but the beginning tells a fable about mankind versus older mythical races, mankind has a "hole" in them which they can not fill, the other races do not, it can been seen as the "God shaped hole in each of us" but it equally could be seen as to do with attachment and relating, in any case it results in the rival modes of existence, highlighted most ably by Erich Fromm, as I've said a religious traditions influenced psychologist, those of having and being. In the movie it results in a war between the human race and the others when they sort of have enough of humanitys not dealing with their shit.

Would you be surprised that Erich Fromm features prominently in Ernest Becker's thinking? So much so that he mentions him as required reading in his book Denial of Death. Becker's writings and thinking would later become Terror Management Theory. That god shaped hole in each of us? Mortality salience or the human condition.


“Take stock of those around you and you will … hear them talk in precise terms about themselves and their surroundings, which would seem to point to them having ideas on the the matter. But start to analyse those ideas and you will find that they hardly reflect in any way the reality to which they appear to refer, and if you go deeper you will discover that there is not even an attempt to adjust the ideas to this reality. Quite the contrary: through these notions the individual is trying to cut off any personal vision of reality, of his own very life. For life is at the start a chaos in which one is lost. The individual suspects this, but he is frightened at finding himself face to face with this terrible reality, and tries to cover it over with a curtain of fantasy, where everything is clear. It does not worry him that his “ideas” are not true, he uses them as trenches for the defense of his existence, as scarecrows to frighten away reality.” ~ Jose Ortega y Gasset


P.S. Thanks for the book recommendations earlier.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not trying to be "sectarian" here but in my experience I tend to find a lot of atheists are unimaginative and proud about that, the divisions between negative theology in traditions right from Moses Maimonades (spelling) versus (mystical) Kabbalah in some ways I think are reproduced now between atheism and alternatives.

I have found this attitude much more prevalent among believers than atheists. I know far more believers who have never questioned their beliefs, who practice in much the same way as their parents and neighbors, often with an emphasis on the social and cultural aspects the video discusses. The few atheists and agnostics I know, by contrast, have usually given their beliefs fairly serious thought, so whether I agree with them or not, they can actually discuss the subject in a coherent manner.

 

[Lark]

I have found this attitude much more prevalent among believers than atheists. I know far more believers who have never questioned their beliefs, who practice in much the same way as their parents and neighbors, often with an emphasis on the social and cultural aspects the video discusses. The few atheists and agnostics I know, by contrast, have usually given their beliefs fairly serious thought, so whether I agree with them or not, they can actually discuss the subject in a coherent manner.

I dont mean about questioning their beliefs, I think that's a seperate thing, at least in terms of negative theology vs. mythology/mysticism.

How many great fantasy and even science fiction do you know that's written by athiests? Besides HP Lovecraft I'm not sure of many to be honest, Dawkins has even come out as opposed to the idea of imaginative fiction too.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I dont mean about questioning their beliefs, I think that's a seperate thing, at least in terms of negative theology vs. mythology/mysticism.

How many great fantasy and even science fiction do you know that's written by athiests? Besides HP Lovecraft I'm not sure of many to be honest, Dawkins has even come out as opposed to the idea of imaginative fiction too.

My impression is that there is a correlation between wanting absolute conclusions about the nature of reality in a closed system of thought and a lack of imagination. There are people who want to approach the universe as atheists based on a concrete, literal approach to believing only that which one can observe and measure. It is also possible to approach religion in this same manner because many religions have an answer for every question. I grew up in a religion that had a huge set of "commentaries" that was a 20ft long span of books that answered every question and commented on every verse in the Bible. They also had leaders who could give a "yes" or "no" answer to any complex question. This would be an example of that same style of absolute, unimaginative, non-questioning approach. It takes whatever is familiar, comfortable, definable, and packs it into a closed system of belief about the nature of the universe. End of story. Imagination serves no purpose here.

 

[Lark]

My impression is that there is a correlation between wanting absolute conclusions about the nature of reality in a closed system of thought and a lack of imagination. There are people who want to approach the universe as atheists based on a concrete, literal approach to believing only that which one can observe and measure. It is also possible to approach religion in this same manner because many religions have an answer for every question. I grew up in a religion that had a huge set of "commentaries" that was a 20ft long span of books that answered every question and commented on every verse in the Bible. They also had leaders who could give a "yes" or "no" answer to any complex question. This would be an example of that same style of absolute, unimaginative, non-questioning approach. It takes whatever is familiar, comfortable, definable, and packs it into a closed system of belief about the nature of the universe. End of story. Imagination serves no purpose here.

I see what you mean, I think that's a reflection of personality traits more than actual religion, it could as easily be ideology or even some kind of fandom niche which is the frame of reference and object of devotion.

Its very interesting what you've got to say but my point was actually simpler, I dont think that the person who can not conceive of God, afterlife etc. would be able to conceive of hansel and grettel or any similar story, it would lead to a very dull existence.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I see what you mean, I think that's a reflection of personality traits more than actual religion, it could as easily be ideology or even some kind of fandom niche which is the frame of reference and object of devotion.

Its very interesting what you've got to say but my point was actually simpler, I dont think that the person who can not conceive of God, afterlife etc. would be able to conceive of hansel and grettel or any similar story, it would lead to a very dull existence.

Interestingly enough, the more conservative expressions of the religion I grew up in did not believe in reading fiction. It was considered a mild sin or something. I don't think the inverse is true - that all religion by its nature limits imagination because that would not be correct, but there are some expressions of it that do.

I don't think that Einstein was a strict atheist, but perhaps more agnostic. You may be familiar with this quote:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” Albert Einstein

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]
Actually most of the religions in the U.S. that have that approach of discouraging imagination began in the 1800's as part of that Puritan/Romanticism cultural dichotomy. This includes some of the new religions started then along with various traditional communities that still function in the midwestern farm country.

 

[Lark]

Interestingly enough, the more conservative expressions of the religion I grew up in did not believe in reading fiction. It was considered a mild sin or something. I don't think the inverse is true - that all religion by its nature limits imagination because that would not be correct, but there are some expressions of it that do.

I don't think that Einstein was a strict atheist, but perhaps more agnostic. You may be familiar with this quote:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” Albert Einstein

Einstein was a theist in the Jewish tradition, at the very best you could say that the professed negative theology like Moses Maimonides (spelling) but you couldn't claim him for either atheism or agnosticism if you knew as much of his writing first hand as I do.

 

[Mole]

Einstein was a theist in the Jewish tradition, at the very best you could say that the professed negative theology like Moses Maimonides (spelling) but you couldn't claim him for either atheism or agnosticism if you knew as much of his writing first hand as I do.

Catholics have a penchant for claiming death bed conversions of famous people.

This is so transparently part of Catholic propaganda de fide, we are amazed they are not embarrassed.

 

[five sounds]

Religion is the spiritual substitute of athiests.

 

[Coriolis]

How many great fantasy and even science fiction do you know that's written by athiests? Besides HP Lovecraft I'm not sure of many to be honest, Dawkins has even come out as opposed to the idea of imaginative fiction too.

Not sure what you are getting at here (are you implying atheists are unimaginative?) but the following fantasy/SF authors are usually identified as atheists. Of course I cannot personally vouch for what they actually believe. I have found Sagan especially to be quite spiritual, for example.

Ursula LeGuin
Larry Niven
Terry Pratchett
Isaac Asimov
Carl Sagan
H.G. Wells
Harlan Ellison
Douglas Adams
Bruce Sterling
Arthur C Clarke
Stanislaw Lem
Phillip Pullman

 

[Gypsy-Flux]

seems to me that De Botton is one of those atheists with a religious instinct and he realizes how alienated and isolated he feels. He wants to experience the same cohesiveness that religious folks are embedded in.

Having already repudiated the organic lifeworld (of which religion is a part), he wants to come back around in order to…… engineer an “organic” lifeworld.

 

[Coriolis]

seems to me that De Botton is one of those atheists with a religious instinct and he realizes how alienated and isolated he feels. He wants to experience the same cohesiveness that religious folks are embedded in.

Having already repudiated the organic lifeworld (of which religion is a part), he wants to come back around in order to…… engineer an “organic” lifeworld.

What is "the organic lifeworld"?

 

[Gypsy-Flux]

What is "the organic lifeworld"?

"The life-world is a social, political, historical, and cultural environment where human beings interpret, communicate, and socially engage in multiple communal spheres"

that's from here