How do you reconcile theism and atheism

[RexT]

Q1) how does a theist reconcile the fact of atheism?
1)the atheist is deceived by Satan
2)the atheist is deceived by god
3)the atheist is mentally incompetent
4)the atheist is confused
5)the atheist is a liar
6)the atheist intentionally chooses damnation
7)the atheist doesn’t know about god
8)other (explain)

Q2) how does the atheist reconcile the fact of theism?

1)The theist is deceived by other theists
2)The theist is self-deceived
3)the theist is mentally incompetent
4)the theist is confused
5)the theist is a liar
6)other (explain)

Please extend either list as much as possible.

[Luis Garcia]

Q1) how does a theist reconcile the fact of atheism?
1)the atheist is deceived by satin
.

I get very confused by satin. Usually because it means MrsGarcia has been shopping, and I'll have DIY to do somewhere.

[RexT]

hehe, I know what you mean, and I fixed the typo.

[Lucretius III]

My answerS to Question 2 are in varying degrees in each person

1)
2)
and
4)

I honestly think that real theists are NOT liars I think they really do believe in what they say they do
Anyone who does not believe and lies to let's say gain a financial advantage or power is surely not a theist in any case but just a con man

[Ray Moscow]

For Q2: we have a tendency to believe with parents and other authority figures tell us.

You should add an option that some beliefs are attractive because they enforce our egocentrism, fulfill wishful thinking, or quiet our fears.

[tjakey]

When I was a theist I really believed the things I believed. When I told people all about god, (Just typing that now makes me shudder, how much hubris do you have to have tell people all about god?) I didn't think I way lying to them. Most people believe some version of what their parents believed and then they cooperate in maintaining that belief by not really looking at it too close. So there is a little self delusion involved as well. For the most part though, religion is (was) part of humankind's infancy. Assuming we last long enough to evolve a little more, I suspect religion will fade away.

[Ian Nerr]

Humans have a tendency for superstition. They also tend to believe what they are taught in childhood.

[Luis Garcia]

how much hubris do you have to have tell people all about god?

None. Why would you think that?

For the most part though, religion is (was) part of humankind's infancy. Assuming we last long enough to evolve a little more, I suspect religion will fade away.

Now we're cooking.

[David B]

Q1) how does a theist reconcile the fact of atheism?
1)the atheist is deceived by Satan
2)the atheist is deceived by god
3)the atheist is mentally incompetent
4)the atheist is confused
5)the atheist is a liar
6)the atheist intentionally chooses damnation
7)the atheist doesn’t know about god
8)other (explain)

Q2) how does the atheist reconcile the fact of theism?

1)The theist is deceived by other theists
2)The theist is self-deceived
3)the theist is mentally incompetent
4)the theist is confused
5)the theist is a liar
6)other (explain)

Please extend either list as much as possible.

I'd just like to point out that as far as I see at first sight, most of the choices for theists explaining atheism are not mutually inconsistent, and none of the choices for atheists understanding theists are.

David B (suggests that we under-estimate at our peril the power of putting people ito dissociative states, and the power of positive reinforcement_

[tjakey]

Why would I think that? Well gee, lets see…

“Here I am a finite creature, limited in ability, scope, imagination, language, and knowledge, but let me tell you all about an infinite god; what he (it, she?) likes, doesn’t like, expects, demands, desires, knows, and wants. While I’m at it I’ll tell you all about a heaven I can’t possibly know anything about, threaten you with a hell I also can’t possible know about. Which, mind you, will not stop me from assuring you that you will end up in that hell unless you accept this god pretty much exactly as I am describing it to you; along with his (its, hers?) likes, dislikes, rules, etc.

And were did I get all of this amazing knowledge? Why out of an absolutely ancient book of questionable morality, demonstrably false history, and an utterly bronze age understanding of the universe written by people who couldn’t possibly have known anything about a god either.”

If that isn’t hubris, the word has no meaning.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I don't reconcile theism with atheism.

[David B]

I don't reconcile theism with atheism.

Nonetheless, there remain theists and atheists within the rich pageant of existence.

David B (is of the opinion that the theists have got it wrong)

[Pavlov's Dog]

I don't reconcile theism with atheism.

Nonetheless, there remain theists and atheists within the rich pageant of existence.

Well sure there are. If you didn't have theists then you wouldn't have a need for the label atheist.

[Ian Nerr]

I don't reconcile theism with atheism.

Nonetheless, there remain theists and atheists within the rich pageant of existence.

David B (is of the opinion that the theists have got it wrong)

Isn't it arrogant to think that billions of people are wrong and you are right?

[David B]

I don't reconcile theism with atheism.

Nonetheless, there remain theists and atheists within the rich pageant of existence.

David B (is of the opinion that the theists have got it wrong)

Isn't it arrogant to think that billions of people are wrong and you are right?

Not necessarily.

David B

[seebs]

Q1) how does a theist reconcile the fact of atheism?
1)the atheist is deceived by Satan
2)the atheist is deceived by god
3)the atheist is mentally incompetent
4)the atheist is confused
5)the atheist is a liar
6)the atheist intentionally chooses damnation
7)the atheist doesn’t know about god
8)other (explain)

Well, let's see. I'll throw out one and two for now; I don't have good reason to xplore those. I'll toss 6 as non-responsive; atheism and damnation are unrelated things. Also 5; a person who claims to be an atheist, but is lying about it, is not an atheist, and we don't need to reconcile that with anything. So, let's look at:

3)the atheist is mentally incompetent
4)the atheist is confused
7)the atheist doesn’t know about god
8)other (explain)

I have certainly met theists and atheists both that I think were mentally incompetent to varying degrees. I suspect all humans are at least a little shy of the resources needed to develop genuinely justified certainty on this issue.

Confused? I suppose so. Once again, I have seen both theists and atheists whose positions on the issue reflected at least some confusion.

7 is probably the most plausible and reasonable of the specific examples offered, but what does it mean? If someone has been told about "God" in some form, but sees no evidence, is this a person who "doesn't know about god", or do you mean that as restricted to the case of people who have never had the notion suggested to them?

For the most part, my speculation is that atheists are people who have not found anything to convince them that there is substance behind human speculations as to the existence or nature of a god or gods. I do not know whether, had I their experiences or data, I would think similarly. I do not know whether, had they my experiences or data, they would be atheists. All I can do is observe that the information thus far available to them has not persuaded them, and I can't really say why in any detail. My guess is that, in most cases, my divergence from them is fairly early on in the abstract theory of epistemology, such that by the time we get far enough along to start talking about specifics, we're already in completely different worlds.

[stumpjumper]

I would go with other.

In many cases, actually, I could argue that many atheists have found God. They just call God something different....

[Ian Nerr]

I would go with other.

In many cases, actually, I could argue that many atheists have found God. They just call God something different....

Conversely, I could argue that many atheists have found what many theists call God.

[stumpjumper]

Just for you my friend:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." ~ Christian theologian Paul Tillich

He expands upon that here in Volume One of his Systematic Theology:

"Thus the question of the existence of God can neither be asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by it's very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being itself, not a being." Page 237 Systematic Theology - Volume One Tillich


Now. I must go watch the Sixers.

[RexT]

Well, when an atheist converts to theism or vise versa, it would seem that such a person can see both sides. And it would seem that this gives them a unique perspective to see the faults and benefits in both positions. I'm not convinced that this is the case however. There could be any number of reasons a person would change sides. So it would seem to me that reconciliation isn't necessarily achieved just because a person has been on both sides of this issue.

[Ian Nerr]

Well, when an atheist converts to theism or vise versa, it would seem that such a person can see both sides. And it would seem that this gives them a unique perspective to see the faults and benefits in both positions. I'm not convinced that this is the case however. There could be any number of reasons a person would change sides. So it would seem to me that reconciliation isn't necessarily achieved just because a person has been on both sides of this issue.

Before I fully gave up theism, I kept both views in mind like competing hypotheses. Eventually I gave up on theism. I can't tell the difference between a world with no God and a God who does nothing, which it seems is the only God there could be.

[VoxRat]

When I was a theist I really believed the things I believed. When I told people all about god, (Just typing that now makes me shudder, how much hubris do you have to have tell people all about god?) I didn't think I way lying to them. Most people believe some version of what their parents believed and then they cooperate in maintaining that belief by not really looking at it too close. So there is a little self delusion involved as well. For the most part though, religion is (was) part of humankind's infancy. When I was a theist, I really believed that other people believed the things I was supposed to believed, and I believed that they were older and wiser than I was, and that therefore those things must be true, even if they didn't seem to be. I thought there must be some sense in which those things must be true, and my challenge was to discover that sense. I'm pretty sure now that I was wrong.
Assuming we last long enough to evolve a little more, I suspect religion will fade away.Well... maybe. In the long run. Maybe.
But I suspect religion is going to make a comeback as we head into the epic events (coming soon to a planet near you!) in which the recently exploded global population implodes. I have a feeling Osama bin Laden, Moqtada al Sadr, and Jerry Fallwell are harbingers of the dawning of a new age - and it's not the Age of Aquarius.

[RexT]

Well, when an atheist converts to theism or vise versa, it would seem that such a person can see both sides. And it would seem that this gives them a unique perspective to see the faults and benefits in both positions. I'm not convinced that this is the case however. There could be any number of reasons a person would change sides. So it would seem to me that reconciliation isn't necessarily achieved just because a person has been on both sides of this issue.

Before I fully gave up theism, I kept both views in mind like competing hypotheses. Eventually I gave up on theism. I can't tell the difference between a world with no God and a God who does nothing, which it seems is the only God there could be.Does this then reconcile the issue between theism and atheism for you? That is to say, is the issue clearly and completely resolved by your method, such that, any reasonable person using your exact method would have a clear and complete realization of how this issue arises and how it is resolved?

[VoxRat]

Well, when an atheist converts to theism or vise versa, it would seem that such a person can see both sides. And it would seem that this gives them a unique perspective to see the faults and benefits in both positions. I'm not convinced that this is the case however. There could be any number of reasons a person would change sides. So it would seem to me that reconciliation isn't necessarily achieved just because a person has been on both sides of this issue.I think that "reconciliation" you're talking about is the "it must be true in some sense" that I was talking about.
And much as I admire the sentiments of the late twentieth century sage, Rodney "Can't we all just get along?" King, I'm afraid that's just bullshit.

[Ian Nerr]

Well, when an atheist converts to theism or vise versa, it would seem that such a person can see both sides. And it would seem that this gives them a unique perspective to see the faults and benefits in both positions. I'm not convinced that this is the case however. There could be any number of reasons a person would change sides. So it would seem to me that reconciliation isn't necessarily achieved just because a person has been on both sides of this issue.

Before I fully gave up theism, I kept both views in mind like competing hypotheses. Eventually I gave up on theism. I can't tell the difference between a world with no God and a God who does nothing, which it seems is the only God there could be.Does this then reconcile the issue between theism and atheism for you? That is to say, is the issue clearly and completely resolved by your method, such that, any reasonable person using your exact method would have a clear and complete realization of how this issue arises and how it is resolved?

I don't really know how to answer that question. It depends what you mean by my method.

I don't think there is any mystery to why there are theists and atheists.

[RexT]

Well, when an atheist converts to theism or vise versa, it would seem that such a person can see both sides. And it would seem that this gives them a unique perspective to see the faults and benefits in both positions. I'm not convinced that this is the case however. There could be any number of reasons a person would change sides. So it would seem to me that reconciliation isn't necessarily achieved just because a person has been on both sides of this issue.I think that "reconciliation" you're talking about is the "it must be true in some sense" that I was talking about.
And much as I admire the sentiments of the late twentieth century sage, Rodney "Can't we all just get along?" King, I'm afraid that's just bullshit.I think what I mean by "reconciliation" is how each person justifies his/her own position in a world where the opposing position asserts its own self with equal amounts of passion and reason, if not equal qualities of both. And looking at the opposing position as to say, "that is clearly wrong because of X, Y or Z". Thus, the theist and atheist finds some rational explanation for why some people are opposed to their view.

Doesn't the theist believe the atheist is wrong and vise versa with the atheist, and doesn't the atheist think that everyone should join the atheist position and vise versa with the theist? Must someone be wrong or right? Is that how these opposing positions are reconciled or justified? Or is there a difference between how the theist and the atheist reconciles the position of the other?

I'm trying to play the role of an unbiased referee to see if both sides are playing on the same field or if each is playing a completely different game form the other. And if there is a difference, could that difference be grounds to call the game in favor of one side or the other.

[shipload]

I don't "reconcile".

[Pavlov's Dog]

I think what I mean by "reconciliation" is how each person justifies his/her own position in a world where the opposing position asserts its own self with equal amounts of passion and reason, if not equal qualities of both.

I don't think each side asserts his/her own position with equal amounts of passion and reason.

[RexT]

I think what I mean by "reconciliation" is how each person justifies his/her own position in a world where the opposing position asserts its own self with equal amounts of passion and reason, if not equal qualities of both.

I don't think each side asserts his/her own position with equal amounts of passion and reason.Well, that is of course your opinion, and you may well be right. But reading the doctors of theology, one is hard pressed to describe their extraordinary efforts, insight and reasoning as somehow lacking the magnitude or scope invested in same by the opposition. Did you perhaps mean that there is a distinct difference in the quality of each?

[Rathpig]

Q2) how does the atheist reconcile the fact of theism?

........ 6)other (explain)

In order not to skew my response, I have not read the other posts in this thread. I may be covering already tread ground, but this is my understanding of the topic:



Theism is a cultural construct. This doesn't mean that every member of a specific culture will embrace these cultural beliefs or that certain members will not look to other cultures or new constructs, but for the greatest extent, the majority theistic beliefs are determined by the culture, embraced by the culture, and can be best understood through cultural markers. Many seemingly unrelated aspects of the culture feed into the overall socio-religious identity. This is often why those who are disillusioned with the majority cultural religion will constantly seek out something with which to replace the ideal. A large part of society can not function without some form of "belief". The "need" for this form of metaphysic is forced from birth.

Dawkins sought to delineate the topic; however his education as a biologist may have slightly altered some of his assumptions by looking for a "science" explanation through the memescape and assuming "delusion" when the answer is actually much more simplistic. Cultural anthropology tends to temper these more harsh categories by making a larger comparison to other social constructions. Like most topics the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Religion is the main way that cultures have solidified throughout the historical period of human evolution. This provides both a easily codified cultural identity and a cultural superiority by claiming "truth" unknown or unembraced by competing groups.

Obviously this is a topic that could fill volumes, but suffice it to say that the blame for religion is not on the individual. Embracing the need for religion is no different than embracing any other cultural construct. It is of course an anachronism, but it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of a individual psychological delusion. Since "normality" is actually a function of group agreement, it could be argued that rejecting religion is "abnormal" and thereby delusional.

Luckily logic and reason lie outside of the constructed group norms.

[Ray Moscow]

Just for you my friend:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." ~ Christian theologian Paul Tillich

He expands upon that here in Volume One of his Systematic Theology:

"Thus the question of the existence of God can neither be asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by it's very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being itself, not a being." Page 237 Systematic Theology - Volume One Tillich


Now. I must go watch the Sixers.

If I recall my (rather limited) Existentialism, a view which Tillich seems to favour in his Chicago lectures (later published as his A History of Christian Thought), "existence" is a state between "Being" and "Nothingness".

As such, "God" would not "exist", even if God were real. God would just Be, or as Tillich famously put it is "the ground of all Being".

Or perhaps Nothing. :)

[Zebulon]

As such, "God" would not "exist", even if God were real. God would just Be, or as Tillich famously put it is "the ground of all Being".

And such a panentheist "god" is neither the god of orthodox, creedal Christianity, nor the god believed in by the vast majority of religious people. Positing such a "god" seems to me to be functionally indistinguishable from atheism. seebs, would you agree? If not, please explain why.

[RexT]

Q2) how does the atheist reconcile the fact of theism?

........ 6)other (explain)

In order not to skew my response, I have not read the other posts in this thread. I may be covering already tread ground, but this is my understanding of the topic:



Theism is a cultural construct. This doesn't mean that every member of a specific culture will embrace these cultural beliefs or that certain members will not look to other cultures or new constructs, but for the greatest extent, the majority theistic beliefs are determined by the culture, embraced by the culture, and can be best understood through cultural markers. Many seemingly unrelated aspects of the culture feed into the overall socio-religious identity. This is often why those who are disillusioned with the majority cultural religion will constantly seek out something with which to replace the ideal. A large part of society can not function without some form of "belief". The "need" for this form of metaphysic is forced from birth.

Dawkins sought to delineate the topic; however his education as a biologist may have slightly altered some of his assumptions by looking for a "science" explanation through the memescape and assuming "delusion" when the answer is actually much more simplistic. Cultural anthropology tends to temper these more harsh categories by making a larger comparison to other social constructions. Like most topics the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Religion is the main way that cultures have solidified throughout the historical period of human evolution. This provides both a easily codified cultural identity and a cultural superiority by claiming "truth" unknown or unembraced by competing groups.

Obviously this is a topic that could fill volumes, but suffice it to say that the blame for religion is not on the individual. Embracing the need for religion is no different than embracing any other cultural construct. It is of course an anachronism, but it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of a individual psychological delusion. Since "normality" is actually a function of group agreement, it could be argued that rejecting religion is "abnormal" and thereby delusional.

Luckily logic and reason lie outside of the constructed group norms.Interesting approach. So you absolve the individual of responsibility for being religious and raise it to the the higher abstraction of a society. I do at least like the direction you take. Still, there are those individuals who, as you wrote, "look to other cultures or new constructs", which tends to make me look again at the individual.

And I like that you find some redeeming quality or aspect of religion in that it assists in the formation of unity, thus, in the formation and strengthening of culture and society. Yet, this calls into question whether culture and society is the driver of religion, or whether religion is the driver of culture and society. Or whether they arise together and are mutually reinforcing. But there must be something within the individual that is triggered in the context of a society that germinates the seed of religion within the individual, else, this seed lies completely in the context, in society.

Be that as it may, I'm not sure if you pointed us in the direction of reconciliation or merely opened a door to more questions and uncertainty. You essentially seem to be looking for a source of religion and seem to have found it in society. But I'm not at all sure if you have it nailed down yet.

Certainly, it seems to be human nature to be religious, at least in the majority. So you are suggesting that atheists are anomalies or something like that. And yet, even if all this is correct, there is still the age old debate and each side completely convinced they are right and the other side wrong. So I can't really see any reconciliation by your approach. And there seems to plenty of justification by each side to feel completely right and to look down on the other. Perhaps reconciliation is impossible, while justification is not only possible but abundant. It's the one thing that both sides hold in common - they both feel justified in their position.

Perhaps I have completely misunderstood you.

[Ray Moscow]

As such, "God" would not "exist", even if God were real. God would just Be, or as Tillich famously put it is "the ground of all Being".

And such a panentheist "god" is neither the god of orthodox, creedal Christianity, nor the god believed in by the vast majority of religious people. Positing such a "god" seems to me to be functionally indistinguishable from atheism. seebs, would you agree? If not, please explain why.

I think it's basically like this:

1. Paul Tillich was a Lutheran minister and a theologian and therefore qualifies as a "Christian" theologian.

2. Tillich defines "God" such that "God" has to be real, by definition.

3. Therefore, the Christian "God" is proven by being far beyond even the need for "proof" or even questioning, you stupid literal-minded fundie atheist you.

Pretty good slight of hand, eh?

Actually, Tillich's "God" has nothing in common with the "God" of the Bible or religion, except they are both asserted to be real.

[Luis Garcia]

6)other (explain)


Imagine a society with two types of people, tribespeople and barbarians.

Tribespeople value culture, tradition, ritual, the needs of the many, respect, authority, rules and groups. They do things the way they do because that's how they've always done them. They are arranged heirarchically, and defer to elders and superiors. They are unlikely to be great innovators, but they can build stable and successful societies. They value the needs of the group over those of individuals. However, they are prone to weaknesses in that they catch memes and groupthink easily. For example, given the way they are structured it's good for them to obey authority, but this easily becomes corrupted into one can only be good in the presence of an authority.

Barbarians value honour, integrity, achievement, bravery and the individual. They do things the way they do because those ways are interesting, or challenging. They're not really arranged, so lack automatic respect for authority. They are likely to be innovators and challenge conventional wisdom, but their lack of automatic respect for groups makes them prone to unstable societies. The needs of the group are the collective needs of the individuals, so they are more likely to value rights of individuals. They are immune to groupthink.



Any successful society would need a mix of these, tribespeople to provide stability and barbarians to provide innovation and immunity to memes.

Example; suppose all scientists were barbarians. Then the scientific method would have to be re-established each time they test something. They would need to demonstrate a theorys evidence base each time they came across it. But suppose all scientists were tribespeople. Then no innovation would ever occur.



So how do I account for thiests? Too many years of too many tribespeople.

[RexT]

Great story Luis! It makes a lot of sense. So you are saying that theists and atheists can be reinterpreted metaphorically as Tribespeople and Barbarians, respectively.

Of course, you're also saying that society needs both kinds of people. That's the part I really like. But the problem is that these people, although they form a kind of symbiotic relationship, they really don't get along very well. Each side thinks the other is crazy and flat out wrong. But you really do reconcile these two types through their symbiosis.

I have to confess that I'm really both of these in unequal amounts. I'm mostly Barbarian but there is a bit of Tribesman in me too. And just as reconciling these into a single society is beneficial to the whole, reconciling both in a single body is beneficial to me as an individual.

[Luis Garcia]

Well, actually, I'm saying that society would need tribespeople and barbarians, not theists and atheists. The implication was that the god concept (and therefore theism) is a corrupted meme that there weren't enough barbarians to provide immunity against.

But I don't think you're unusual in being a bit of both. I don't think many people would falll squarely into one or the other.

All conjecture, of course.

[RexT]

Well, actually, I'm saying that society would need tribespeople and barbarians, not theists and atheists. The implication was that the god concept (and therefore theism) is a corrupted meme that there weren't enough barbarians to provide immunity against.

But I don't think you're unusual in being a bit of both. I don't think many people would falll squarely into one or the other.

All conjecture, of course.Ouch, my bad interpretation. Sorry.

So I guess, going back to the OP list, you would add that the theist is corruption of perfect atheism? Is that how you reconcile?

[Luis Garcia]

you would add that the theist is corruption of perfect atheism? Is that how you reconcile?

I doubt it, because I have no idea what you mean by "perfect atheism".

?

[RexT]

you would add that the theist is corruption of perfect atheism? Is that how you reconcile?

I doubt it, because I have no idea what you mean by "perfect atheism".

?You said theism was a corruption. That indicates an impurity doesn't it? So if theism is an impurity or corruption it indicates that something was perfect or pure before it was corrupted. How else can you interpret corruption?

So if atheism was corrupted it had to be be pure or perfect at one point. You really can't corrupt something that is already impure, right?

[Luis Garcia]

You said theism was a corruption. That indicates an impurity doesn't it? So if theism is an impurity or corruption it indicates that something was perfect or pure before it was corrupted. How else can you interpret corruption?

So if atheism was corrupted it had to be be pure or perfect at one point. You really can't corrupt something that is already impure, right?

I guess, but I meant it's a corrupted memeplex based on the tribespeoples values.

Consider yourself as a happy tribesman. You highly value what the group says and does, and what your ancestors said and did. Your ancestors said that "it's a good idea to obey the authority figures in the tribe".

Over time, that gets corrupted via mistranslations, or mishearing, or whatever, to "it's good to obey the authority figure of the tribe".

Over more time, it becomes "Good is when you obey the authority figure".

Even later, it's now "You are good if you obey the authority figure. How do we know there is an authority figure? There must be one, else how could we be good?"

See? Just by paying too much respect to what your ancestors said, (and what they said was, for the tribespeople, perfectly fine) you've derived one of the most common arguments for the existence of a god.

So go through the attributes of the tribespeople, and see how easily they could be persuaded that there is a god. And of course, once one generation thinks that there is, successive generations will listen to that first one as they are the elders and eventually ancestors. (Which in itself is another argument that's used... ad populum. And also arguing from scripture, I suppose)

So a slight mutation of the ideals that the tribe holds easily becomes theism.

[RexT]

If the tribespeople memeplex evolved as you describe it, you have some explaining to do. First, the choice of the word corruption is suspect and bias laden. The word evolved seems more natural and less biased. To say that there was corruption is to suggest some primal or ideal state that was pure, but since one can always go further back and find an earlier state from which the so called ideal state would then be a corruption and so on, evolved seems a better choice. Of course, that destroys your analogy.

Second, where do the barbarians come into the picture and how did they escape from evolving along with the others (or using your term; how did they remain uncorrupted)?

[Luis Garcia]

If the tribespeople memeplex evolved as you describe it, you have some explaining to do. First, the choice of the word corruption is suspect and bias laden. The word evolved seems more natural and less biased. To say that there was corruption is to suggest some primal or ideal state that was pure, but since one can always go further back and find an earlier state from which the so called ideal state would then be a corruption and so on, evolved seems a better choice. Of course, that destroys your analogy.

Second, where do the barbarians come into the picture and how did they escape from evolving along with the others (or using your term; how did they remain uncorrupted)?

Why would using the word evolved destroy the argument? Seems fine to me. The reason (as far as there was one) for using the word corrupted was that the original "primal ideal" was "It's a good idea to obey your authority figure". In a hierarchical structure where the authority is the one with most experience, that's a good idea.

But it's the meme that evolves (or corrupts), not the people, so the barbarians escape the effect because they are immune to memes (because they don't value tradition, ritual or groupthink).

[RexT]

I didn't say it destroys the argument. I said it destroys the analogy - the idea that something was once pure but was later corrupted doesn't make sense if we just say that things evolve.

If you're just saying that memes evolve, well, that's fine. I would certainly agree. But I'm still trying to connect that to how theism and atheism are reconciled. At first I thought you were saying that essentially there are two kinds of people and that both kinds complement each other. That in my mind would do the trick of reconciling. But that's not what you meant. You are saying that theism evolved from the type of person who values respect for authority, and that that contrasts with the type of person who values freethought.

But of course, I personally don't see any reconciliation in this because it essentially claims that one type of person is more pure than the other, which puts the two types at odds. Really, it places us right back to where we started with theists and atheists essentially at war with each other, and war and reconciliation are not the same thing. Reconciliation occurs when both sides are joined together to form a synthesis and both are winners. Not when one side defeats and destroys the other.

Well, I will admit that your idea (which I think is really Dawkins idea, right?) is more advanced than how some atheists view theism. But essentially it still suggests that theists are deluded or perhaps diluted from a pure state. Do you see the negative connotations? Suppose for the sake of argument there really is some sort of god. Wouldn’t that mean that the atheist is the one who is deluded or diluted from a pure state? I’m not saying there is a god, really, we just can’t know, but that the approach you are taking is biased and negative, the very antithesis of reconciliation. And of course I’m not saying you are wrong; you could very well be right. But in that case, there will never be any reconciliation between theists and atheists.

I personally think there is a way to reconcile these two types of people or belief systems for the betterment of all humanity. But don’t pay any mind to me; I’m just an optimist.

[Luis Garcia]

The thing is, though, Rex, that either gods exist or they don't. There isn't really a middle ground here. One of either atheists or theists are simply wrong.

So I've pretty much lost track of what you're looking for here.

[Rathpig]

I think my ideas about religion as a cultural construct and the tribe-vs.-barbarian idea of Luis fall along the same lines.

It isn't that the individual is completely absolved of responsibility in their religious beliefs, but the individual can't really ever be the source for their own religiousity. Even when an individual seeks a religious view outside of their specific culture, and this is a fairly modern attitude anyway, that individual will understand the religion through preexisting cultural ideas. Some religions transfer well to other cultures and some do not. This is probably why Abrahamism dominates the world religious memescape. It can be altered easily to fit new cultures. Shinto would be an example of a religion that doesn't appear widely adaptable outside of it's original "tribe".

Atheism is an anomaly at this point of human evolution because supernatural religious views are present in most cultures. This doesn't mean that atheism will not become a common tribal view in the future. And atheism doesn't preclude non-supernatural "religions". The case can be made that the "tribe" has adopted more non-supernatural religions than supernatural at this point in history. In the current Western culture, consumerism and entertainment are the true dominant "religions". Though a majority of the populations in a majority of cultures give lip-service to the idea of "god(s)", few genuinely act as if that belief is central to their life.

[RexT]

The thing is, though, Rex, that either gods exist or they don't. There isn't really a middle ground here. One of either atheists or theists are simply wrong.

So I've pretty much lost track of what you're looking for here.Well, I'm not looking to prove or disprove god. My focus is always on people and their beliefs, not god or the supernatural. I guess I subscribe to the idea that, if god exists, it is something beyond human ability to know. I suppose that would make me more agnostic than atheist, but I digress.

Anyway, I'm interested in your idea because I certainly believe that life evolves and thus whatever life does evolves too. In the case of humans, we have advanced to a species level with the ability to think and create ideas. And it is interesting to me that the development and evolution of ideas closely mirrors the development and evolution of life itself.

So I suppose I'm looking for how theism and atheism might be reconciled or synthesized into a new more useful idea or meme as Dawkins calls it. As it stands, I don't see this happening by either side simply saying the other is wrong. I try to keep separate an idea or belief and whatever it is supposed to refer to. For example, one could develop the idea of a god regardless if a real god exists or not, and if that were done in a certain way, it could actually be beneficial. It's about human nature and belief systems that I'm interested, not whether they refer to something real. I guess, something like a false but useful myth. Which I happen to believe is the case anyway. I mean, most if not all that we believe is on some level false but still useful.

[Luis Garcia]

Well, I'm not looking to prove or disprove god. My focus is always on people and their beliefs, not god or the supernatural.


Seems ok to me.


I guess I subscribe to the idea that, if god exists, it is something beyond human ability to know.

Why should this be the case? What is there in the god concept that necessitates it being beyond the human ability to know? What does it even mean for something to exist that is beyond our theoretical ability to know about? And what would be the difference between that and it not existing?

If, as you go on to say, you are not interested in "truth" but "usefulness", what is the point in acknowledging a distinction between a god it is impossible to know anything about (and is therefore useless) and one that doesn't exist?


I suppose that would make me more agnostic than atheist, but I digress.


Not really. See the Dawkins scale of belief.


So I suppose I'm looking for how theism and atheism might be reconciled or synthesized into a new more useful idea or meme as Dawkins calls it.

Such as?


As it stands, I don't see this happening by either side simply saying the other is wrong.

Do you agree that one side is wrong? It's a pretty binary call. Either entities worthy of the name "gods" exist or they don't. There isn't really an in between.

Or is it that you just see all these discussions as a flame fest of "u wrng", "No U WRNGER"?


I try to keep separate an idea or belief and whatever it is supposed to refer to. For example, one could develop the idea of a god regardless if a real god exists or not, and if that were done in a certain way, it could actually be beneficial. It's about human nature and belief systems that I'm interested, not whether they refer to something real. I guess, something like a false but useful myth. Which I happen to believe is the case anyway. I mean, most if not all that we believe is on some level false but still useful.

Useful for some, sure. That was one of the points of the tribalism v barbarianism tale.

Poison for others, definitely.

Are you willing to sacrifice the barbarians for the sake of the usefulness of the god concept to the tribespeople?

[Rathpig]

Atheism/Theism is a either/or state. No way can exist to consolidate the two states. It does help both sides of the issue to understand the cultural source of the beliefs. Of course this anthropological reality can't be reconciled with those who believe a supernatural entity handed down "The Truth" in the form of a book.

The middle road of the deist or agnostic isn't really a compromise because the "true believer" will cast the same surety of damnation on anyone outside their tribe.

[RexT]

I think my ideas about religion as a cultural construct and the tribe-vs.-barbarian idea of Luis fall along the same lines.

It isn't that the individual is completely absolved of responsibility in their religious beliefs, but the individual can't really ever be the source for their own religiousity. Even when an individual seeks a religious view outside of their specific culture, and this is a fairly modern attitude anyway, that individual will understand the religion through preexisting cultural ideas. Some religions transfer well to other cultures and some do not. This is probably why Abrahamism dominates the world religious memescape. It can be altered easily to fit new cultures. Shinto would be an example of a religion that doesn't appear widely adaptable outside of it's original "tribe".

Atheism is an anomaly at this point of human evolution because supernatural religious views are present in most cultures. This doesn't mean that atheism will not become a common tribal view in the future. And atheism doesn't preclude non-supernatural "religions". The case can be made that the "tribe" has adopted more non-supernatural religions than supernatural at this point in history. In the current Western culture, consumerism and entertainment are the true dominant "religions". Though a majority of the populations in a majority of cultures give lip-service to the idea of "god(s)", few genuinely act as if that belief is central to their life.That's interesting and I would include scientism as a modern religion too. So even if we progressively move away from supernatural religions, it will just be replaced by natural religions. I wonder if that is the reconciliation I have in mind. A synthesis of human nature and Nature.

One of the things I found repugnant about supernatural religions is how they portray human nature as somehow vile or evil, and the sense that Nature itself is some kind of perversion. The phrase "be in the world but not of the world" and always looking towards the after life and the eagerness to leave this world behind. From my perspective, that attitude is a rejection of life, such as it is with its beauty and its disgust, and yet they seek an after life. I wonder why someone born into the world, who has been given the gift of life and essentially rejects it would want another life in another world. It doesn't make sense to me. What's up with that, I wonder? But I digress.

[Luis Garcia]

One of the things I found repugnant about supernatural religions is how they portray human nature as somehow vile or evil, and the sense that Nature itself is some kind of perversion. The phrase "be in the world but not of the world" and always looking towards the after life and the eagerness to leave this world behind. From my perspective, that attitude is a rejection of life, such as it is with its beauty and its disgust, and yet they seek an after life. I wonder why someone born into the world, who has been given the gift of life and essentially rejects it would want another life in another world. It doesn't make sense to me. What's up with that, I wonder?

QFT

[RexT]

Why should this be the case? What is there in the god concept that necessitates it being beyond the human ability to know? What does it even mean for something to exist that is beyond our theoretical ability to know about? And what would be the difference between that and it not existing?I think we can say with great certainty that any type of theistic god cannot exist. But I have a sense of god different from theism (which I won't discuss in much detail here), but it's just a senses I have, something that is part of me or I am part of it, or maybe both. And yet, I wouldn't try to explain that to anyone else because I don't really know how. But essentially, if my instincts or intuition and my personal experience is any indication, then I am awestruck and speechless at what I have seen and imagined. It is something beyond my human ability to really express, yet, it could also just be that I have an extraordinary imagination. But my sense of god is not something I think can be known as one knows the objects in the world. I realize that there is something more to the world than meets the eye, I feel myself up against my own limitations, but I have had a brief few moments throughout my life where I managed to surpass my usual limitations and see into another world. I would like to share that experience but alas I cannot. What I can tell you is that if I have seen something that is either real or may potentially be real in another universe, it is well beyond ordinary human abilities to really know much about it. But I have always thought that god is something that is part of human potential, what we may eventually evolve to become. And I an tell you that our current greatness pales in comparison. Make of that what you will.

If, as you go on to say, you are not interested in "truth" but "usefulness", what is the point in acknowledging a distinction between a god it is impossible to know anything about (and is therefore useless) and one that doesn't exist?I don't think I'm saying I'm not interested in truth. But at the same time I realize that there are truths and there are truths. Individual truths, global truths and universal truths, and perhaps eternal truths. I'm all for getting at whatever truth we can, but more interested in living the best life possible. And I face the reality that I will pass from existence having known so very little about the world and its truths. And then again, I'm not so certain that the world has any truths at all, or that truth is only a human construct of our logic.

Such as?Well, if I knew that I wouldn't be looking anymore. : )

Or is it that you just see all these discussions as a flame fest of "u wrng", "No U WRNGER"?Yeah, something like this.

Are you willing to sacrifice the barbarians for the sake of the usefulness of the god concept to the tribespeople?Naw.

[Rathpig]

The reason I have always been an atheist, even from childhood, was my complete inability to reconcile how human nature could be a "sin" against the very creator the designed human nature. The free will argument is such a poor excuse for this contradiction that I couldn't accept it in primary school. Of course I couldn't articulate my objection, but I could recognize it as completely illogical.

I would also add that atheism itself can become a religion and even a cult. An exchange happening elsewhere on the internet is exposing this reality in a very clear fashion. Anyone who respects actual free thought and rational methods should always guard against that becoming a doctrine which you worship rather than a means to the end of knowledge. Even knowledge itself must be recognized as a fluid condition.

One must be a cynic and iconoclast even toward their own beliefs.

[RexT]

The reason I have always been an atheist, even from childhood, was my complete inability to reconcile how human nature could be a "sin" against the very creator the designed human nature. The free will argument is such a poor excuse for this contradiction that I couldn't accept it in primary school. Of course I couldn't articulate my objection, but I could recognize it as completely illogical.

I would also add that atheism itself can become a religion and even a cult. An exchange happening elsewhere on the internet is exposing this reality in a very clear fashion. Anyone who respects actual free thought and rational methods should always guard against that becoming a doctrine which you worship rather than a means to the end of knowledge. Even knowledge itself must be recognized as a fluid condition.

One must be a cynic and iconoclast even toward their own beliefs.I can relate completely. In a way, it was inevitable that you and I and others like us would eventually reject religion in all its forms, especially if we were indoctrinated. I also connect with what you say about knowledge. Even a brief sketch of history reveals how fluid it is. Do you ever try to imagine how our current knowledge and the sense of certainty it gives us will be viewed in another one thousand years? How much of it will be considered classical and enduring, and how much considered as flat wrong as a flat earth? And will there be volumes written about us, calling our knowledge "myths of the information age"? Who knows, but if history is a guide one gets a sense of how it could go.

Yet, I wonder if I have truly rejected religion in all its forms or just the most obvious ones. I wonder if its so deeply ingrained in the human psyche, so much a part of my brain that I can never fully escape it; it is my nature to be religious because I am human. I shudder at the thought of it, but not wanting to delude myself, I might rather embrace that part of me which otherwise I loath. Is it any different that I would reject a part of my own nature, to essentially condemn myself as the theists who condemn their own selves - calling it a sinful nature. But I do not call it sinful, rather, I call it ignorance. But ignorance really is part of human nature, for we base this on our knowledge, and this knowledge, as said above, is a liquid substance always changing its shape in conformity of the world.

Your thoughts.

[Rathpig]

A point I alluded to earlier about some turning atheism into a religion is part of the thing we should examine constantly as individuals and a larger "community". It is easy to fall into the trap of dogmatic thinking. I find myself all too often falling into what can only be called "religious" modes of thinking.

Some recent meta-discussion here at TR has hinted toward that type of a problem.

The drama going on between The Rational Response Squad and some members of RDnet and RnR also illustrates just how "religious" atheism can become for certain groups. By their own actions and words the Rational Response Squad has demonstrated what can only be called "cult-like" behavior. This is first of all counter-productive for their stated goals, but it is a great illustration of the discussion occurring in this thread and the meta-discussion in Town Hall.

Humans wrap themselves into a limited monkey-sphere and even can turn opposition to religion into just another competing religion. We are a strange animal.

I don't see us evolving beyond this in the near future. Not only will our assumed certainty of knowledge be questioned in a thousand years, the larger philosophical constructs which we hold so dear will not necessarily be as universally valid as we now claim.

At the end of the day, I like to think that Epicurus may have been the most universal of all thinkers. Pleasure should be our goal. Everything else is questionable.

[seebs]

One of the things I found repugnant about supernatural religions is how they portray human nature as somehow vile or evil, and the sense that Nature itself is some kind of perversion. The phrase "be in the world but not of the world" and always looking towards the after life and the eagerness to leave this world behind.

I sort of agree, and sort of disagree.

I think I share your position on the underlying issue, or close to it. I don't think I agree with the broad assertion about supernaturalist religions.

From my perspective, that attitude is a rejection of life, such as it is with its beauty and its disgust, and yet they seek an after life. I wonder why someone born into the world, who has been given the gift of life and essentially rejects it would want another life in another world. It doesn't make sense to me. What's up with that, I wonder? But I digress.

I certainly agree with this. I think the tendency to reject everything to do with this life is, uhm. Bad. Stupid. Also very annoying.

Lemme just get back to two parts of this:
1. Human nature as "evil".

Is human nature evil? Certainly. Is human nature good? You betcha. Human nature is pervasively mixed. There are no perfectly-good people. What this means is that absolutely everyone has flaws -- flaws which are in essence of the same character, and the same substance, as the flaws in even our most horrifying villains.

These flaws can be overcome. However, we can never overcome them without first acknowledging them.

People do not much like being told they are worse than other people, and often enough, it's untrue. So. What can you tell someone, which is true, and which is also (if he comes to accept it) going to convince him that he himself has moral shortcomings which he must address?

One choice would be to explain that evil is pervasive in humanity; that every human contains at least some evil. There is no way around it, and furthermore, it's not conveniently isolated. No one is a genuinely perfect spouse, but a dishonest and lazy worker. No one is a perfect teacher, but a poor husband. These flaws pervade everything we do. They may be very minor, and even unnoticable in some cases, but there is no getting away from them... And without that starting point, we usually make excuses for them as they grow and spread.

2. "In the world, but not of it."

There is something of a term of art going on here. There is a sort of consensus reality with which we are mostly familiar; it's the world of temporal authority and power, where idealism is bad and realism is good. You can sell one another for fifteen cents / well bye-bye mother it's common sense. This attitude is utterly pervasive. I don't know that I've made it a week of my life in the last decade or two without at least one person telling me to lie about something. "Oh, just say it was that way when you got it." "Just tell them you have another offer."

To be "of" the world is not to be made of meat, or to have the usual variety of human impulses and desires. It is to surrender to the clamor of voices telling you that you cannot make a difference, that there is nothing you can do for these people, or those people, or anyone else. It is to accept the dog-eat-dog world, and begin to compete the way "everyone" else does.

Nature is not a perversion. Nature's awesome. Cats are brutal killers. No excuses made; none needed. They are as they are made, and I don't see any point in expecting otherwise.

But me? I have choices. My ancestors may have had no real option but to fling shit at apes with different-patterned fur. But I can choose; I do not have to form a neighborhood association to keep the colored folks out. (Not that I could, these days, even if I wanted to -- but people have in the past.)

Nature isn't perverted; that doesn't mean it is always particularly a moral standard. Nature is pure is, with no ought to it at all. It is not immoral, or moral; it is amoral. I can, if I wish, be moral. To do so is not to be "of the world". (I know, technically, if I do it, it's natural. The terminology is a bit artificial in spots.)

In my eyes, to be "in the world, but not of it", is to reject the cultural and social assumptions, and sometimes the remains of our instincts, in favor of making choices based on some other standard. I don't think it implies any kind of contempt for "nature" or anything like that.

BTW, this also answers a number of questions on issues like, say, how to deal with cussing. If I conclude that cussing is "worldly", then I should... not cuss. Not prevent other people from cussing, not separate myself from people who cuss. No. That would be trying not to be in the world, or trying to adopt the worldly use of temporal power to create personal comfort at the expense of others.

IMHO, things like "Christian bookstores" are the exact opposite; they are "of the world, but not in it". They pursue the same goals as any other bookstore, by the same means -- and they pursue separation as an end in itself. If anything, they are more evil than a purely secular bookstore which is, after all, selling books. And there's nothing wrong with trying to make money selling books, IMHO. There may be something wrong with trying to make money selling God.

[seebs]

At the end of the day, I like to think that Epicurus may have been the most universal of all thinkers. Pleasure should be our goal. Everything else is questionable.

Please tell me you have read the comic Epicurus the Sage.

[RexT]

A point I alluded to earlier about some turning atheism into a religion is part of the thing we should examine constantly as individuals and a larger "community". It is easy to fall into the trap of dogmatic thinking. I find myself all too often falling into what can only be called "religious" modes of thinking.

Some recent meta-discussion here at TR has hinted toward that type of a problem.

The drama going on between The Rational Response Squad and some members of RDnet and RnR also illustrates just how "religious" atheism can become for certain groups. By their own actions and words the Rational Response Squad has demonstrated what can only be called "cult-like" behavior. This is first of all counter-productive for their stated goals, but it is a great illustration of the discussion occurring in this thread and the meta-discussion in Town Hall.

Humans wrap themselves into a limited monkey-sphere and even can turn opposition to religion into just another competing religion. We are a strange animal.

I don't see us evolving beyond this in the near future. Not only will our assumed certainty of knowledge be questioned in a thousand years, the larger philosophical constructs which we hold so dear will not necessarily be as universally valid as we now claim.

At the end of the day, I like to think that Epicurus may have been the most universal of all thinkers. Pleasure should be our goal. Everything else is questionable.Well yes, pleasure is the only sensible philosophy. It has the tendency of getting our minds off dogmatism and focused on our interactions with each other. Funny how well we can get along if we are sharing fun and laughs. Its only when get back to our religiosity that we start seeing enemies all around.

For this reason, I subscribe to a part of the eastern philosophy of Jesus. He said the kingdom of heaven is like a little child (all of which I take metaphorically, btw). Kids don't start out with a dogmatic view of themselves or the world - they are not religious. They are open-minded, fun, and quick to forgive and get over fights and such. In a way, it is the broader world that knowledge opens to us as adults that also creates the traps we fall into. Ironically, our great strength (the ability to gather information) is also a source of our undoing.

[RexT]

One of the things I found repugnant about supernatural religions is how they portray human nature as somehow vile or evil, and the sense that Nature itself is some kind of perversion. The phrase "be in the world but not of the world" and always looking towards the after life and the eagerness to leave this world behind.

I sort of agree, and sort of disagree.

I think I share your position on the underlying issue, or close to it. I don't think I agree with the broad assertion about supernaturalist religions.I think I understand your point here, but tend to think that the dualism between nature and super-nature may underlie much of the dissatisfaction of this world expressed by the idea of an after life. At least I think that is part of the issue.

From my perspective, that attitude is a rejection of life, such as it is with its beauty and its disgust, and yet they seek an after life. I wonder why someone born into the world, who has been given the gift of life and essentially rejects it would want another life in another world. It doesn't make sense to me. What's up with that, I wonder? But I digress.I certainly agree with this. I think the tendency to reject everything to do with this life is, uhm. Bad. Stupid. Also very annoying.Indeed!

Lemme just get back to two parts of this:
1. Human nature as "evil".

Is human nature evil? Certainly. Is human nature good? You betcha. Human nature is pervasively mixed. There are no perfectly-good people. What this means is that absolutely everyone has flaws -- flaws which are in essence of the same character, and the same substance, as the flaws in even our most horrifying villains.

These flaws can be overcome. However, we can never overcome them without first acknowledging them.

People do not much like being told they are worse than other people, and often enough, it's untrue. So. What can you tell someone, which is true, and which is also (if he comes to accept it) going to convince him that he himself has moral shortcomings which he must address?

One choice would be to explain that evil is pervasive in humanity; that every human contains at least some evil. There is no way around it, and furthermore, it's not conveniently isolated. No one is a genuinely perfect spouse, but a dishonest and lazy worker. No one is a perfect teacher, but a poor husband. These flaws pervade everything we do. They may be very minor, and even unnoticable in some cases, but there is no getting away from them... And without that starting point, we usually make excuses for them as they grow and spread.Well, this is where you and I hold very different philosophies. I don't think you are wrong, your reasoning per se. I simply dispute the premises you start from. The two premises in particular:

P1) evil exists
P2) flaw exists

Well, it certainly is true that morality is a part of human nature and that we make mistakes. But if you consider that these are normative constructs and not real things per se, it changes how you see the world. By normative I mean that we use them as guideposts. There is no real evil in the world or is there any real flaws in it. These are artificial constructs, abstractions, optional constructs. And yes, they are perhaps indispensable and unavoidable. The problem is that they also create traps for us, and we easily and naturally fall into them.

For example, who gets to decide what is evil or a flaw? Who brings more evil into the world; theists or atheists? Who is more flawed; theists or atheists? And so these question open the door for great conflict and fear. I think not in terms of evil or flaws but in results, whether they are constructive or destructive. Morality is destructive to us. It creates traps that guarantee that someone will fall into. Quite simply, it creates a system of them against us. If someone is right, automatically that means that someone is wrong. If someone is good, automatically someone is evil. You see?

The premise that the world is flawed and that people are flawed is a huge factor driving the idea of heaven and an after life. People want to leave this flawed world and go to a better world. They begin to loath this word because no matter what we do or how much we learn or how hard we try, people are still flawed because this world that gave us birth is flawed. You see?

But what we fail to realize it that it is the so-called flaws that allowed us to exist in the first place. It is from our pathologies that we learn and advance intellectually. Much of what is known about the workings of the brain is derived from the affects of pathologies or injuries, as an example. Those were the invaluable entry points and still serve this function today. Look closer at how much society has advanced from the mistakes it has made. War, poverty, crime, etc., and countless social experiments have driven us to where we are today. Also I could mention the imperfections in reproduction important for evolution. Without which life on earth would still consist of single cell microbes.

Now, are these really flaws or simply the mechanisms of a perfect world, perfect because it has the ability to evolve and produce unlimited variety. It all depends on how you define flaws.

Thus, we see that the premises of evil and flaws are not premises at all but subjective judgments. Simply different ways to look at the same phenomena.

2. "In the world, but not of it."

There is something of a term of art going on here. There is a sort of consensus reality with which we are mostly familiar; it's the world of temporal authority and power, where idealism is bad and realism is good. You can sell one another for fifteen cents / well bye-bye mother it's common sense. This attitude is utterly pervasive. I don't know that I've made it a week of my life in the last decade or two without at least one person telling me to lie about something. "Oh, just say it was that way when you got it." "Just tell them you have another offer."

To be "of" the world is not to be made of meat, or to have the usual variety of human impulses and desires. It is to surrender to the clamor of voices telling you that you cannot make a difference, that there is nothing you can do for these people, or those people, or anyone else. It is to accept the dog-eat-dog world, and begin to compete the way "everyone" else does.

Nature is not a perversion. Nature's awesome. Cats are brutal killers. No excuses made; none needed. They are as they are made, and I don't see any point in expecting otherwise.

But me? I have choices. My ancestors may have had no real option but to fling shit at apes with different-patterned fur. But I can choose; I do not have to form a neighborhood association to keep the colored folks out. (Not that I could, these days, even if I wanted to -- but people have in the past.)

Nature isn't perverted; that doesn't mean it is always particularly a moral standard. Nature is pure is, with no ought to it at all. It is not immoral, or moral; it is amoral. I can, if I wish, be moral. To do so is not to be "of the world". (I know, technically, if I do it, it's natural. The terminology is a bit artificial in spots.)

In my eyes, to be "in the world, but not of it", is to reject the cultural and social assumptions, and sometimes the remains of our instincts, in favor of making choices based on some other standard. I don't think it implies any kind of contempt for "nature" or anything like that.

BTW, this also answers a number of questions on issues like, say, how to deal with cussing. If I conclude that cussing is "worldly", then I should... not cuss. Not prevent other people from cussing, not separate myself from people who cuss. No. That would be trying not to be in the world, or trying to adopt the worldly use of temporal power to create personal comfort at the expense of others.

IMHO, things like "Christian bookstores" are the exact opposite; they are "of the world, but not in it". They pursue the same goals as any other bookstore, by the same means -- and they pursue separation as an end in itself. If anything, they are more evil than a purely secular bookstore which is, after all, selling books. And there's nothing wrong with trying to make money selling books, IMHO. There may be something wrong with trying to make money selling God.Well, I like your interpretation of this, but there are a great many pious folks who don't see it as you do. They use that idea as justification to hate the world and call it evil, to call human nature sinful. They really do believe that they are above this world, separate from it, better than it is, and so on. They use it as justification to burn the flesh of sinners that their precious souls might be saved in heaven. The thing to do is not to reinterpret this in a better light as you do, but to replace it with a better idea altogether.

[seebs]

Well, this is where you and I hold very different philosophies. I don't think you are wrong, your reasoning per se. I simply dispute the premises you start from. The two premises in particular:

P1) evil exists
P2) flaw exists

Well, it certainly is true that morality is a part of human nature and that we make mistakes. But if you consider that these are normative constructs and not real things per se, it changes how you see the world. By normative I mean that we use them as guideposts. There is no real evil in the world or is there any real flaws in it. These are artificial constructs, abstractions, optional constructs. And yes, they are perhaps indispensable and unavoidable. The problem is that they also create traps for us, and we easily and naturally fall into them.

Interesting! Yes, I'm a moral realist, and this influences things.

But you can make this work by simply declaring the term "evil" to mean, without prejudice, things people do which harm other people but which could be avoided.

For example, who gets to decide what is evil or a flaw? Who brings more evil into the world; theists or atheists? Who is more flawed; theists or atheists? And so these question open the door for great conflict and fear. I think not in terms of evil or flaws but in results, whether they are constructive or destructive. Morality is destructive to us. It creates traps that guarantee that someone will fall into. Quite simply, it creates a system of them against us. If someone is right, automatically that means that someone is wrong. If someone is good, automatically someone is evil. You see?

I think I see, and if so, I disagree. I think I understand the argument -- I had it presented to me by a friend once, who got it from the Dalai Lama. But I don't think I agree that morality is destructive. I think that tribalism is destructive, but I don't think morality implies tribalism; rather, I think it is subverted by tribalism.

I think what you highlight here is the flaw of trying to externalize evil -- make it be a part of everyone else, rather than a part of oneself.

The premise that the world is flawed and that people are flawed is a huge factor driving the idea of heaven and an after life. People want to leave this flawed world and go to a better world. They begin to loath this word because no matter what we do or how much we learn or how hard we try, people are still flawed because this world that gave us birth is flawed. You see?

I guess. I've seen it before. It strikes me as crazy. If there really is a God out there, who put us in this flawed world, then I think we are probably supposed to interact with it in some way.

But what we fail to realize it that it is the so-called flaws that allowed us to exist in the first place. It is from our pathologies that we learn and advance intellectually. Much of what is known about the workings of the brain is derived from the affects of pathologies or injuries, as an example. Those were the invaluable entry points and still serve this function today. Look closer at how much society has advanced from the mistakes it has made. War, poverty, crime, etc., and countless social experiments have driven us to where we are today. Also I could mention the imperfections in reproduction important for evolution. Without which life on earth would still consist of single cell microbes.

Exactly!

Much of what we think of as "flaws" isn't optional. This is, indirectly, why I am unbothered by the problem of evil. I am not sure that a less-flawed world would be a better one.

Now, are these really flaws or simply the mechanisms of a perfect world, perfect because it has the ability to evolve and produce unlimited variety. It all depends on how you define flaws.

Thus, we see that the premises of evil and flaws are not premises at all but subjective judgments. Simply different ways to look at the same phenomena.

I'm not convinced. I think we can reasonably talk about evil in a practical sense, and the terminology can be useful.

Well, I like your interpretation of this, but there are a great many pious folks who don't see it as you do. They use that idea as justification to hate the world and call it evil, to call human nature sinful. They really do believe that they are above this world, separate from it, better than it is, and so on. They use it as justification to burn the flesh of sinners that their precious souls might be saved in heaven. The thing to do is not to reinterpret this in a better light as you do, but to replace it with a better idea altogether.

I am not convinced that there is a suitable replacement to be had. I have not found something better for that particular "slot" in my cognitive model. Maybe I will later.

[RexT]

seebs,

I get the distinct sense that we are not in disagreement but using different ways of talking about essentially the same thing. I mean, I think we are saying essentially the same thing.

It's about the choice of words and how we frame them. Words like evil, sin, flaw; these mean different things to you than they do to other people, especially religious fanatics who use these words to condemn. You aren't using them that way but in a constructive way, which is why I know we are more in agreement than disagreement.

Unfortunately, these words carry the baggage of a destructive past, and there are many who still feel justified in keeping that past alive. My hope is to see an end of these words altogether and replace them with words that convey a different meaning.

As an example, being fifty years old, I've seen people struggle my whole life to make the word "nigger" mean something that isn't destructive, and they have failed to do that. It still carries its old baggage and it probably always will. I simply never use that word, I never have. And while I once used the word "sin" in my youth, I've long since filed it in the useless baggage bin and will never use it again. I have no desire to waste my life trying to redefine or reinterpret the word. I'd rather look for a better word to say what I want to say. But thats me, I guess. It's a personal choice.

[Febble]

seebs,

I get the distinct sense that we are not in disagreement but using different ways of talking about essentially the same thing. I mean, I think we are saying essentially the same thing.

It's about the choice of words and how we frame them. Words like evil, sin, flaw; these mean different things to you than they do to other people, especially religious fanatics who use these words to condemn. You aren't using them that way but in a constructive way, which is why I know we are more in agreement than disagreement.

Unfortunately, these words carry the baggage of a destructive past, and there are many who still feel justified in keeping that past alive. My hope is to see an end of these words altogether and replace them with words that convey a different meaning.

As an example, being fifty years old, I've seen people struggle my whole life to make the word "nigger" mean something that isn't destructive, and they have failed to do that. It still carries its old baggage and it probably always will. I simply never use that word, I never have. And while I once used the word "sin" in my youth, I've long since filed it in the useless baggage bin and will never use it again. I have no desire to waste my life trying to redefine or reinterpret the word. I'd rather look for a better word to say what I want to say. But thats me, I guess. It's a personal choice.

Yes. "God" has awful baggage too. But simply relabelling what I've always thought of it as with something else seems a bit trivial.

[Lucretius III]

Originally Posted by Rathpig
At the end of the day, I like to think that Epicurus may have been the most universal of all thinkers. Pleasure should be our goal. Everything else is questionable.

I do hope that by pleasure you really mean absence of pain and fear.

For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by aponia, the absence of pain and fear, and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends.

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

[Rathpig]

I do hope that by pleasure you really mean absence of pain and fear.


Epicurus spoke of the concept of Hêdonê. This is much more complex than the concept of "pleasure" in modern Western society, and the word lost most meaning by the translation to "hedonism". Hêdonê is pleasure without a negative consequence. This is much more than the simple absence of pain and fear, but it must by it's very nature also focus on this absence.

An example where Hêdonê fails would be imbibing alcohol. No matter the pleasure caused, the consequence is frequently negative. In fact it is negative enough that one must take strict amount precautions to avoid the consequence. This would not met the standard of a pleasurable "good". Likewise, if an act causes one person pleasure but has a negative consequence to another this can not be called "good". For "pleasure" in Hêdonê to exist, no harm can occur.

When we examine the modern concept of pleasure it is much more libertine and short-sighted. Epicurus did not support the view that "I got mine" or "live for the moment" could be "good".


To bring this back to the theme of the OP, it may be possible to reconcile theism with atheism within the concept of Hêdonê. Of course this reconciliation would have to exclude the Abrahamism suite of theism based on the central negative and harmful ideology that underpins these doctrines. Even the New Age concept of "do what you will, but harm none" may not go far enough to reach the goal of Epicurian good. However, it does at least attempt to make a neutral impact.

Atheism as a concept doesn't ask for much ideological room. It is rather simplistic. Where reconciliation because difficult is that theism too often makes strict demands. The anthropomorphic gods were made a bit too much in man's image. Human nature does not seek to abrogate harm from pleasure or even from good. An ends justifies the means approach just doesn't rise to the standard which Epicurus set. Theism, for all of it's rhetoric to the contrary, rarely seeks to move very far from the base human nature of it's creators. This makes it rather difficult to find any common ground with those who don't accept the doctrines of theism.

[Preno]

An example where Hêdonê fails would be imbibing alcohol.An example where any philosophy based on individual gratification fails is the fact that it disregards other people. It may cause me pleasure to have hordes of slaves at my disposal, but that doesn't mean I should strive to attain this.

[Rathpig]

An example where Hêdonê fails would be imbibing alcohol.An example where any philosophy based on individual gratification fails is the fact that it disregards other people. It may cause me pleasure to have hordes of slaves at my disposal, but that doesn't mean I should strive to attain this.

Likewise, if an act causes one person pleasure but has a negative consequence to another this can not be called "good". For "pleasure" in Hêdonê to exist, no harm can occur.


Epicurus did not promote a philosophy of "individual gratification" or pleasure which caused any form of harm. This is explicit in the concept of Hêdonê.

It is also why the modern term "hedonism" can not be honestly applied to Epicurean thought. Such an application is a horrible misunderstanding, perhaps even historically intentional, of the philosophy.

[Preno]

Yeah, but "pleasure should be our goal, except when it shouldn't" doesn't say much, does it? It is always possible to increase other people's pleasure at the cost of decreasing one's own pleasure. A principle that doesn't say when to do so is not a principle, but a tautology.

[Rathpig]

Yeah, but "pleasure should be our goal, except when it shouldn't" doesn't say much, does it? It is always possible to increase other people's pleasure at the cost of decreasing one's own pleasure. A principle that doesn't say when to do so is not a principle, but a tautology.

Is a criticism of Epicurus or of utility?

Epicurus held Hêdonê to be the highest form of good, but I am not sure you can criticize seeking good by saying it isn't always obtainable. The Ethic of Reciprocity, while not a perfect match to utility, was key to the Epicurean philosophy. Again this isn't a something that finds broad consideration in observed human nature; however the principle itself is laudable.

Can you honestly criticize these concepts because they don't go far enough to any specific view of utility? Philosophy is often a generalized commentary rather than a specific map.


ETA: This is related to the OP because the Epicurean concepts are atheistic in nature and demonstrate the difficulty of reconciling humanistic ethical considerations with the subjective ethics of theism. This is especially true with the horrible ethical system of Abrahamism which is often merely situational and ad hoc. Epicurus at least hinted at a universal humanistic ethic. This is the area where any reconciliation of atheism with theism must occur if such a reconciliation is possible. In stark contrast to the often asserted "atheists have no morals" canard, on examination atheism may be the only way to approach a humanistic morality. Until theism understands this fact, the two views will remain widely divided.