Religion for Atheists

[Jackytar]

I think Wright is at times far too poetic and vague. he actually identifies himself as an agnostic and is extremely critical of atheists (and even erroneously labels the dreaded "New Atheists" as right-wingers!). His education is in journalism and this is reflected in his science writing (yes, that was an insult), though I did enjoy The Moral Animal.
Here's a recent article where he expounds on the idea of innate morality and James' "unseen order" and "harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto". A Grand Bargain Over Evolution | The New America Foundation
Wright all too often oversimplifies or mischaracterizes some issues in his essays- he quotes Steven Pinker in the article I linked but does so in a slightly deceptive manner imo. Heres Pinker on innate morality: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1

I find William James' definition of religion would probably apply to myself, but it's vague enough to be interpreted pretty broadly.

I intend on reading that article later tonight but I already know what you are talking about. He said many things in that interview that jibes with your assessment - such as stating that religion may be valid as a vehicle for moral expression even for the non-believer (I'm paraphrasing here). Can't bend my mind around that thought.

I've read so much argument here on this forum that Agnosticism is the same as Atheism that I've become wholly convinced.

I actually started a thread on that excellent Pinker article a few months ago but it didn't generate much interest.

Jackytar

 

[linwood]

Ha! Well said. But aren't Atheists, you know, supposed to be better than that?

I`d like to think so but I`d probably be wrong.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.

I agree with Robert Wright on this. I think that by this definition I am a "religious person" too - although I'm not about to start calling myself that. But I agree with that statement. I hold this belief.

So what do you Atheists think? Would you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Jackytar

This belief in an unseen order to the universe and harmonizing with that order is what Animism is all about. Go figure.

 

[Jackytar]

I think Wright is at times far too poetic and vague. he actually identifies himself as an agnostic and is extremely critical of atheists (and even erroneously labels the dreaded "New Atheists" as right-wingers!). His education is in journalism and this is reflected in his science writing (yes, that was an insult), though I did enjoy The Moral Animal.
Here's a recent article where he expounds on the idea of innate morality and James' "unseen order" and "harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto". A Grand Bargain Over Evolution | The New America Foundation
Wright all too often oversimplifies or mischaracterizes some issues in his essays- he quotes Steven Pinker in the article I linked but does so in a slightly deceptive manner imo. Heres Pinker on innate morality: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1

I find William James' definition of religion would probably apply to myself, but it's vague enough to be interpreted pretty broadly.

I read the articles you referenced. I must say I didn't find anything specifically objectionable in Wright's assertions or his treatment of Pinker but he is hard to pin down - vague as you say - in the global view. It has occurred to me before and reinforced here that the actual difference between Atheist and Agnostic is the willingness to "give an inch" to the religious with respect to what may, or may not, lie beyond the human experience. Seems to me that "Atheists" tend to feel more confident that the material world is all there is whereas "Agnostics" are not so sure. I used to call myself Agnostic but stopped when I realized that Atheists, when pressed, will concede that science does not take away mystery. They merely discard musings on the unknown as trivial and pointless. And Agnostics, when pressed, must agree that ultimately they are right. I concluded that there is not much light between the two.

Still, I can't seem to set "The Question" aside. And I wonder why that is...

Jackytar

 

[Autodidact]

The belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.

It struck me this morning that this could also describe science. What I mean is, a scientist accepts reality and tries to learn about it, rather than imposing their preconceived notion of what it should be. And scientists such as Einstein and Hawking (not to mention Darwin) would, I think, endorse this view.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I believe you are right. Einstein along with many others (maybe even Max Planck?) would in fact probably endorse this line of thought. Here is quite possibly evidence to that...

A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer.
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

 

[Runewolf1973]

When Einstein was referring to there being a "spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe", I understand that he was referring not to something "supernatural". It is basically the same as that Spirit that I believe and know to exist. To me it is simply the causative or activating principal that all energy and matter possess. You see? Even an atheist can be an animist.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe you are right. Einstein along with many others (maybe even Max Planck?) would in fact probably endorse this line of thought. Here is quite possibly evidence to that...

A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer.
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

Exactly. Beautiful. Perfect. That's my "religion." Maybe that why some theists get irritated and say that science is our religion. It is, in a sense, but not in the sense of accepting received dogma, rather faith in the sacred nature of reality and truth, and willingness to accept whatever that is.

 

[Jackytar]

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

I agree - excellent quote and one I've never seen before (though similar to other things Einstein wrote on the topic of religion).

We perceive that there is something beyond our reach, feel humbled by it's presence, and strive to move towards it. As Auto said - applies equally to science and religion. Dare I say... the basis for both?

Jackytar

 

[Spiritone]

I've always felt that there is more to Atheism than the nay-saying of religious dogma. That if we are to reject the possession of divine knowledge by humans we still need ways to express those experiences of thought and emotion that transcends the material world - that address the deeply mysterious elements of our existence. The acknowledgement that divine knowledge actually exists.

While listening to a podcast of Bill Moyers interviewing Robert Wright, the author of The Evolution of God he said something that I found interesting. Although he was clearly an Atheist he said, "By William James' definition of religion, I am a religious person". I never heard of William James before but I looked him up. He was a turn of the century psychologist and pragmatic philosopher who thought and wrote quite a bit about mysticism and religious experience. Anyhow, his definition of religion was -

The belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.

I agree with Robert Wright on this. I think that by this definition I am a "religious person" too - although I'm not about to start calling myself that. But I agree with that statement. I hold this belief.

So what do you Atheists think? Would you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Jackytar

Isn't Atheism a belief and therefor a religion?

I really can't call myself anything except a searcher that has beliefs that have changed a lot over time. I like Einstein's definition. But my understanding of spirituality is this: by the very act of discounting anything spiritual we eliminate it. To be "felt" as great religious leaders knew it, it needs to be believed. Not believed, it vanishes. That's what I have come to believe.

 

[rojse]

I suppose you can call atheists religious if you put in enough effort to redefine the word.

 

[Jackytar]

I suppose you can call atheists religious if you put in enough effort to redefine the word.

Yes, but the OP is not about the definition. It's about the belief. I don't care who or what we call religious. I should have just presented the statement without the context. So, would you agree or disagree with the statement?

Jackytar

 

[rojse]

Yes, but the OP is not about the definition. It's about the belief. I don't care who or what we call religious. I should have just presented the statement without the context. So, would you agree or disagree with the statement?

Jackytar

No, unless someone wants to explain where the unseen order is.

 

[Jackytar]

No, unless someone wants to explain where the unseen order is.

Not sure I understand. You don't perceive that there is knowledge beyond your reach?

Jackytar

 

[rojse]

Not sure I understand. You don't perceive that there is knowledge beyond your reach?

Jackytar

Oh, there is. But only because I don't currently have the intelligence to understand it.

 

[Caladan]

The belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.

I agree with Robert Wright on this. I think that by this definition I am a "religious person" too - although I'm not about to start calling myself that. But I agree with that statement. I hold this belief.

So what do you Atheists think? Would you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Jackytar

Philosophically I can relate to it on certain levels. that im an atheist, does not prevent me from playing around with certain religious or spiritual elements of various systems in order to connect with reality through the world of metaphors and analogies.
I think that various non anthropomorphic concepts can offer a platform to intellectually or spiritually express ourselves and relate to the universe around us. to me this is beyond a debate of whether there is spirituality inherent in our psychology. when I say spiritually express, I don't necessarily mean anything supernatural, I mean our various subtle qualities, whether intellectual, emotional, or higher thoughts and emotions in general.
Going back to the statement you've provided, the general theme of working for a collective benefit and being at peace and not in conflict with your natural environment is held dear by many seculars and the religious alike.

 

[Jackytar]

Oh, there is. But only because I don't currently have the intelligence to understand it.

You make it sound like it's something you're working on.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

I don't necessarily mean anything supernatural...

Well, no, not supernatural in a logic-defying way, like paranormal activity or divine providence. But supernatural in that it (it meaning that which lies deep in the unknown) would be completely incomprehensible to us. I read somewhere that the human mind is incapable of properly conceptualizing an atom. Even at the boundaries of our knowledge, things start to get weird.

Jackytar

 

[Autodidact]

I think very much like you, Jacky.

 

[Shishya]

I've always felt that there is more to Atheism than the nay-saying of religious dogma. That if we are to reject the possession of divine knowledge by humans we still need ways to express those experiences of thought and emotion that transcends the material world - that address the deeply mysterious elements of our existence. The acknowledgement that divine knowledge actually exists.

I understand you mean by this that, being Atheist is also "some sort of a religion". If so;

I'd like to support Atheists, and argue from an Atheistic perspective.

Not dreaming is not an act of dreaming. Its called being awake.