What can religion teach atheists?

[Lark]

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

Some of those I'm not so sure about, I would also say that that doesnt really scratch the surface of the sci fi or masterworks series or Gollantz back catalogue, its a generalisation but that was the point I was making about imagination BTW

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Correct me if I'm wrong [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION].

Are you saying theists are more imaginative than atheists? Therefore 'religion can teach atheists to be more imaginitive'.

Are you channeling Ludwig Feuerbach?

 

[Cellmold]

Religion seems to have risen out of that need to correlate the whole from the gestalt; intuitive longings for meaning.

Whereas scientific enquiry tends to establish the whole from a correlation of understanding the parts. While I'm not necessarily saying that scientific enquiry is a 'next step' designed to further that intuitive longing it is the more explicit step to match out the implicit origins that start from that longing. The clash comes when religion turns into ritual and literal interpretations of what I see as metaphoric ideas about existence.

Which isn't to suggest that science provides the final word (we can hardly leave the trap of being human behind and with that the framing of reality that brings) but it's words do come at a greater examination of the assumptions we operate under.

Interestingly, as an aside, the vast amount of work devoted to understanding the human brain has led to some very interesting problems & questions about our ability to understand it's whole by looking at the parts, especially since no singular part is operating in isolation from that whole; whatever that might turn out to be (singular or not).

And maybe religion can give us an idea of why it is we form these concepts of a whole.

 

[Mole]

Religions are entrancing. They entrance most of humanity. So it behoves atheists to add entrancement to reason.

So atheists can learn to be sophisticated in creating entrancement, and learn how to create particular trances for particular purposes, without losing sight of reason.

A good place to start is https://www.hypnosisalliance.com/articles/Trance Theory - Dennis Weir.pdf

 

[Lark]

Religions are entrancing. They entrance most of humanity. So it behoves atheists to add entrancement to reason.

So atheists can learn to be sophisticated in creating entrancement, and learn how to create particular trances for particular purposes, without losing sight of reason.

Aye, you were saying so.

 

[kyuuei]

Three things that come to mind:

• Morality. Many religions have systems of morality that promote considerate and harmonious living in society: things like honesty, charity, respect for others, etc. Most faiths have some form of the Golden Rule that encapsulates this.
• Myths and symbols. Most religions have a set of myths and symbols that are used to convey fundamental truths about humanity and our place in the world, in a way that can be more effective than direct exposition. Not all religions recognize their myths as such, but they can still illustrate valuable lessons about life, even to the non-believer. Consider, for instance, Jesus' parables.
• Meditation. Many religions incorporate some form of meditation, which has been demonstrated to have positive results in helping one remain grounded, relaxed, and able to focus on what is important in life.

All of these can be found completely outside of religion as well, but some of the religious versions are especially accessible and useful, if not taken literally.

Particularly these.

I find humans are very physical creatures.. there is a lot of comfort in tangible things. Even something like "God" is tangible to a Christian person.

For me, although I am not the pagan that casts spells hoping to actually bind someone with psychic energy, I think the ACT of casting spells, to bring physical and mental focus of something together, to write a succinct amount of words to convey exactly the message you want... helps the brain prioritize things and settle down into a singular subject. For someone like me, focus helps tremendously.

Plus, alters are just fucking cool.

 

[GavinElster]

I tend to think that the meaning of "religion" tends to be: some think the biggest questions of life are so hard that we can't know for sure, others seem to take the attitude that if they're so big, then the answer to them would AFFECT HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE, hence one can't be an agnostic (and here I'm talking of agnosticism not with respect to God but with respect to the kinds of metaphysical questions God would purport to be the answer to)....the latter seem to be the ones I'd call religious.

This is basically the difference between reasoning for purely theoretical reasons vs reasoning for practical reasons. I don't think in some ways that the compulsion to take sides on religion is that different from that in politics, which is also a far-from-detached, extremely opinionated space, where the compulsion to have a view is from a kind of practical reason: this affects us now.

In some ways, this is my biggest problem with all this. I'm viscerally against this idea, and I think it's almost without question unreasonable to suppose that, purely and completely on reasoning for knowing (not for acting) alone, there's a lot of difficulty in arriving at a definitive answer to the deepest metaphysical questions in life (the ones that sometimes are answered with appeal to God). In fact, not a small number of those who actively defend religious faiths using professional philosophy seem to hold a view like this: that at some level, reasoning alone can easily lead you in the agnostic direction.
Still, I think a lot of the thoughtful religious people don't have sympathy with this in the same way that a lot of politically active people don't have sympathy from people detached from politics.
They would view this attitude as an excuse to just go lead one's ordinary materialistic life without a spirituality.

 

[Coriolis]

Some of those I'm not so sure about, I would also say that that doesnt really scratch the surface of the sci fi or masterworks series or Gollantz back catalogue, its a generalisation but that was the point I was making about imagination BTW

The list is hardly exhaustive - mostly writers I am familiar with, either because I have read their works, or my INTP likes them so we have their books around the house. One can make a good case for scientific inquiry requiring every bit as much imagination and creativity as science fiction, and the stereotype at least is that scientists tend to be atheist, or at least agnostic. (Not true, but illustrates the role of imagination in the non-religious context.)

This is basically the difference between reasoning for purely theoretical reasons vs reasoning for practical reasons. I don't think in some ways that the compulsion to take sides on religion is that different from that in politics, which is also a far-from-detached, extremely opinionated space, where the compulsion to have a view is from a kind of practical reason: this affects us now.

In some ways, this is my biggest problem with all this. I'm viscerally against this idea, and I think it's almost without question unreasonable to suppose that, purely and completely on reasoning for knowing (not for acting) alone, there's a lot of difficulty in arriving at a definitive answer to the deepest metaphysical questions in life (the ones that sometimes are answered with appeal to God). In fact, not a small number of those who actively defend religious faiths using professional philosophy seem to hold a view like this: that at some level, reasoning alone can easily lead you in the agnostic direction.
Still, I think a lot of the thoughtful religious people don't have sympathy with this in the same way that a lot of politically active people don't have sympathy from people detached from politics.
They would view this attitude as an excuse to just go lead one's ordinary materialistic life without a spirituality.

The question is less whether one lives one's life without a spirituality, than what yardstick one uses guide one's choices. You can be charitable and neighborly and agnostic/atheist, or cruel and selfish and a believer, and of course the reverse of each.

Your comparison with politics makes it easy to see how this plays out. Politics has been described as the art of the possible. We often cannot have exactly what we want in the political arena, and must instead choose the least among evils, or more optimistically, figure out how to get at least some of what we want. This requires pragmatism to win out over ideology, something lost in current politics. We must judge among choices not on ideological purity or theoretical soundness, but on the likelihood of them yielding in practice more of the results we want and less of what we don't want.

Similarly with religion. We cannot know the answers to the metaphysical questions religions claim to answer. Still, we must lead our lives. In judging among possible answers to those questions - including the answer that they are irrelevant to daily life - we would do well to weigh the practical consequences. Do our choices bring good to ourselves and others? Do they minimize suffering and maximize opportunity? Do they lead us frequently into contradictory behavior? Etc.

 

[GavinElster]

The question is less whether one lives one's life without a spirituality, than what yardstick one uses guide one's choices. You can be charitable and neighborly and agnostic/atheist, or cruel and selfish and a believer, and of course the reverse of each.

Well the thing is I was trying to put how many theists seem to see it -- for them, the question of what the answers are to the deepest metaphysical questions often seems to not just be matter of theoretical interest, but practice, and there's a sense in which this is often used to push one away from an agnostic stance

You're for course right that you can be a moral theist or atheist/that many practical issues (in fact, most of the issues we usually call practical -- like ones of how we treat others) are quite apart from these considerations; indeed, many serious theists will concede that through rational inquiry alone, many an atheist is able to lead a moral life that puts many theists to shame. The point I was hoping to make is that what seems to distinguish the religious temperament from many others is how they don't seem to quite be happy with metaphysical questions as mere contemplative exercises.
(And it seems to me strongly that this is part of what sways many away from a more skeptical position than they adopt.)

 

[Coriolis]

You're for course right that you can be a moral theist or atheist/that many practical issues (in fact, most of the issues we usually call practical -- like ones of how we treat others) are quite apart from these considerations; indeed, many serious theists will concede that through rational inquiry alone, many an atheist is able to lead a moral life that puts many theists to shame. The point I was hoping to make is that what seems to distinguish the religious temperament from many others is how they don't seem to quite be happy with metaphysical questions as mere contemplative exercises.
(And it seems to me strongly that this is part of what sways many away from a more skeptical position than they adopt.)

Well, yes - believers want to apply their beliefs in everyday lives, (1) because they value them, and (2) because otherwise they would feel like hypocrites. It leads to some interesting mental gymnastics, depending on how the religious teachings one tries to follow conflate with their personal value system. That being said, I do know believers who will ponder those metaphysical questions as exercises, knowing they can never be completely resolved, and then assume an answer consistent with their personal values (or with their interpretation of the belief system) and apply that simplification to daily living.

I suppose an example of what I was thinking is that an atheist/agnostic might follow the moral teachings of a faith because it seems like a good set of guidelines for daily life, even though he/she doesn't really believe in the spiritual basis for it. I know several agnostics who follow Buddhist principles in this manner. They will say something like, "We can't know if there is a god - I personally think there isn't - but these Buddhists are onto something, and when I apply their teachings, I feel better and am more satisfied/fulfilled in my life."

 

[violet_crown]

Pope said that atheist who aren't dicks are on the level, so maybe nothing?

 

[Mole]

these Buddhists are onto something, and when I apply their teachings, I feel better and am more satisfied/fulfilled in my life."

The good Buddhists of Myanmar, formerly Burma, are raping, killing, and burning the homes of their fellow citizens, the Rohingya.

Just yesterday the good Buddhists sent a message. They publicly murdered Ko Ni, a prominent lawyer, working with the democratically elected parliament to change the Constitution.

Ko Ni was murdered at the Yangon International Airport in public to send the message that the Rohingya have no place in Buddhist Myanmar, and they should leave.

 

[entropie]

The bible teaches a lot. More than any other single book. And all together is the path to wisdom. Which of course is rationality and not mole.

 

[Mole]

The bible teaches a lot. More than any other single book. And all together is the path to wisdom. Which of course is rationality and not mole.

The anti-Mole push is joined by entropie. The anti-Mole push is not only irrational but is fuelled by ressentiment.

And the anti-Mole push is fuelled by conformity - those who are discomforted by originality are anti-Mole.

The anti-Mole push gather together to give themselves Dutch courage in order to push Mole out.

And just as the good Buddhists are pushing the Rohingya out of Mayanmar, so the conforming New Age Buddhists of Typology Central are pushing out Mole.

 

[entropie]

The anti-Mole push is joined by entropie. The anti-Mole push is not only irrational but is fuelled by ressentiment.

And the anti-Mole push is fuelled by conformity - those who are discomforted by originality are anti-Mole.

The anti-Mole push gather together to give themselves Dutch courage in order to push Mole out.

And just as the good Buddhists are pushing the Rohingya out of Mayanmar, so the conforming New Age Buddhists of Typology Central are pushing out Mole.

Dutch? Dont risk a fistfight !

 

[Coriolis]

The good Buddhists of Myanmar, formerly Burma, are raping, killing, and burning the homes of their fellow citizens, the Rohingya.

Just yesterday the good Buddhists sent a message. They publicly murdered Ko Ni, a prominent lawyer, working with the democratically elected parliament to change the Constitution.

Ko Ni was murdered at the Yangon International Airport in public to send the message that the Rohingya have no place in Buddhist Myanmar, and they should leave.

Just goes to show that following Buddhism, just as following other religions, or following no religion, doesn't stop people from being people.

 

[Mole]

Just goes to show that following Buddhism, just as following other religions, or following no religion, doesn't stop people from being people.

Unfortunately it is religion that enables ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes.

 

[entropie]

Unfortunately it is religion that enables ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes.

and?

 

[Gypsy-Flux]

Unfortunately it is religion that enables ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes.

... and irreligion as well.

 

[Mole]

... and irreligion as well.

Both National Socialism and International Communism committed extraordinary crimes in the 20th century. Both were totalitarian beliefs not based on evidence or reason. Both required an act of faith, and required us to blind ourselves to their crimes.

Religion is not based on evidence and reason but is based on faith and a wilful blindness to criminal activity, such as the rape of tens of thousands of children as revealed in the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse.

Both National Socialism and International Communism were totalitarian faiths quite like other religious faiths, like Islam and Catholicism.