Should atheists offer something more than disbelief?

[EverChanging]

I like the way you present your ideas better, but I would suggest to you that there are already many physicalists within traditional faiths, including mainstream Christian churches and movements. Such people, myself among them, do not have the need to reject our entire mythological and liturgical heritage, our rites and traditions and high holy days, the intellectual rigor of our monastic communities, just to embrace physicalism. Physicalism actually meshes much better with the development of Christian ideas through the centuries.

A naturalist need not reject one's own culture's myths, its stories. Certainly we need to create new stories, and our traditional stories can expand, and indeed they must because they were designed to evolve and adapt to different times and places.

I have no problem reconciling my naturalistic physicalism with my evolutionarily-derived instinct for ritual and myth making. It's an art, a drama, a divine play. The physical world is the stage, the altar. God is everything, and my mythic instinct is a part of everything, too.

 

[Straw Dog]

I like the way you present your ideas better, but I would suggest to you that there are already many physicalists within traditional faiths, including mainstream Christian churches and movements. Such people, myself among them, do not have the need to reject our entire mythological and liturgical heritage, our rites and traditions and high holy days, the intellectual rigor of our monastic communities, just to embrace physicalism. Physicalism actually meshes much better with the development of Christian ideas through the centuries.

A naturalist need not reject one's own culture's myths, its stories. Certainly we need to create new stories, and our traditional stories can expand, and indeed they must because they were designed to evolve and adapt to different times and places.

I have no problem reconciling my naturalistic physicalism with my evolutionarily-derived instinct for ritual and myth making. It's an art, a drama, a divine play. The physical world is the stage, the altar. God is everything, and my mythic instinct is a part of everything, too.

Then you are more creative than most people I've encountered. I agree that mythology can be used as an art form to communicate and contemplate our common and profound origins. I personally find that pure naturalism works best as a basis for spirituality rather than any traditional faiths, but it seems like your conclusions are similar in the sense of expanding social and ecological consciousness. I think this end goal is more important than the specific interpretation of naturalistic spirituality that we choose. I actually favor traditional religions adapting in the light of modern science rather than being destroyed completely. I'll take your points into consideration as I speak about traditional religious people in the future.

 

[gnomon]

Naturalistic spirituality isn't in conflict with the scientific facts. It's based on philosophical naturalism. All I'm suggesting we add is our innate human ability to contemplate and meditate on our profound connection to the ecosystem and cosmos. It's an experiential lifestyle intended to expand social and ecological consciousness. It doesn't require any leap of faith whatsoever beyond the scientific evidence. It just requires a choice to embrace the truth that we are literally made of the cosmos.

I think it's already well known that many people recognize we are literally made of "star stuff" as it has been said by some scientists.

If people wish to place in the frame of reference of spirituality that's fine. I fail to see the connection that such a notion is superior to not doing so.

 

[Straw Dog]

I think it's already well known that many people recognize we are literally made of "star stuff" as it has been said by some scientists.

If people wish to place in the frame of reference of spirituality that's fine. I fail to see the connection that such a notion is superior to not doing so.

Does our cultural conditioning not effect how we view our place in the ecosystem? And wouldn't a new method of naturalistic thinking be necessary for expanding ecological consciousness? Given our historical grounding in Enlightenment-age humanism, it seems obvious that we would need a naturalistic spiritual turn in our culture. What would you suggest otherwise? If anything? If not, then how can you contribute to society in this particular field?

 

[rojse]

I realized that my other thread was too fixated on promoting my own brand of pantheism to the detriment of another important point. The point being whether it's enough for atheists to just disbelieve and debunk traditional religious claims without offering something more to replace them with.

We can offer arguments, free up Sunday mornings, and I might have some hot chocolate about, too. I think that's pretty good.

Essentially what traditional religious folk are hearing is that their most profound and meaningful beliefs are completely baseless and absurd.

I wouldn't put it such a cruel and dismissive way, because I don't agree with that - rather, I would say that the religious experiences people have have many credible scientific explanations, and that many religious doctrines offer good moral and social guidelines for general life.

...wouldn't it be more beneficial to society at large for atheists to promote naturalistic spirituality anyway?

All that atheism is is a position that god/s do not exist. What you do with that position after that is your own choice.

 

[gnomon]

Does our cultural conditioning not effect how we view our place in the ecosystem? And wouldn't a new method of naturalistic thinking be necessary for expanding ecological consciousness? Given our historical grounding in Enlightenment-age humanism, it seems obvious that we would need a naturalistic spiritual turn in our culture. What would you suggest otherwise? If anything? If not, then how can you contribute to society in this particular field?

Yes, our cultural conditioning effects how we view our place in the ecosystem. What ecological consciousness are you referring to?

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes, our cultural conditioning effects how we view our place in the ecosystem. What ecological consciousness are you referring to?

I think Albert Einstein worded it better than I'm able to.

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive." -Albert Einstein

I believe that new manner of thinking is naturalistic spirituality and/or scientific pantheism. So essentially what I mean by ecological consciousness is a total transformation in the way we view our place within the ecosystem and cosmos and the actions and non-actions we take accordingly to live in harmony with nature. It doesn't seem that humanism or traditional environmentalism does much in this regard since it only requires that people maintain their strict anthropocentric view of things. I don't know if we can completely escape our anthropocentric tendencies given our reliance on language, but I think we can greatly refine it in a more eco-centric direction.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So far I haven't heard anything about why atheists shouldn't contribute to the promotion of naturalistic spirituality besides because they don't have to.

Why?...Is that answer not good enough for you?....I mean, you asked the question and when we tell you, you think there needs to be more to it then that?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm trying to discuss whether hardcore atheists should use their critical thinking skills in other ways to benefit society

We do and we do it all without any sort of religious-spiritual crutch. At the bottom of my screen is a quote from a movie by Jodie Foster. In reality she is an Atheist but she contributes to society all while maintaining her atheism....so no....no other spiritual/theistic/pseudoscientific/psycho-babel is needed in order for us to wake up one day and say we'd like to help feed and clothe the homeless and the less fortunate or to come to aid those stricken by a natural disaster or to donate our money, time and labour to those in need or to give and assist in charities to help others.....This is what we do. What else do people want from us..., 'to believe in something'...? No you guys can have that all to yourselves.

 

[Straw Dog]

We do and we do it all without any sort of religious-spiritual crutch. At the bottom of my screen is a quote from a movie by Jodie Foster. In reality she is an Atheist but she contributes to society all while maintaining her atheism....so no....no other spiritual/theistic/pseudoscientific/psycho-babel is needed in order for us to wake up one day and say we'd like to help feed and clothe the homeless and the less fortunate or to come to aid those stricken by a natural disaster or to donate our money, time and labour to those in need or to give and assist in charities to help others.....This is what we do. What else do people want from us..., 'to believe in something'...? No you guys can have that all to yourselves.

I specifically meant using their critical thinking skills to benefit the evolution of religion and spirituality. I'm sorry if I implied atheists don't contribute to society in other ways. I didn't mean to argue that it wasn't a good enough answer intellectually that you don't have to promote naturalistic spirituality, but that it just wasn't as beneficial to the progress of society not to.

I actually just watched Contact last night. It's one of my favorite movies. I'm definitely more in line with her character's scientific commitments. It should be noted that she's only an atheist in regards to popular traditional conceptions of God, and not every possible conception. I already explained why nobody has a monopoly on the term earlier.

Regardless, I would say she did have profound naturalistic spiritual experiences in the movie. Whenever she's zooming throughout the cosmos and she's witnessing the magnificent beauty and power of galaxies and life I would say that she was having a profoundly spiritual experience. She says as much when she claims that there are no words to describe it and that they should have sent a poet instead. There are no scientific terms to adequately describe the experience at this point in time. I've just found terms like naturalistic spirituality to be useful in that regard. There's nothing pseudo-scientific about it.

 

[outhouse]

We do and we do it all without any sort of religious-spiritual crutch. At the bottom of my screen is a quote from a movie by Jodie Foster. In reality she is an Atheist but she contributes to society all while maintaining her atheism....so no....no other spiritual/theistic/pseudoscientific/psycho-babel is needed in order for us to wake up one day and say we'd like to help feed and clothe the homeless and the less fortunate or to come to aid those stricken by a natural disaster or to donate our money, time and labour to those in need or to give and assist in charities to help others.....This is what we do. What else do people want from us..., 'to believe in something'...? No you guys can have that all to yourselves.

excellent post


In this case OP wants us all to pay homage to mother earth, not really want though. he more or less is demending it and condemming atheist for their lack of contributions to his personal belief not many share.

 

[gnomon]

I think Albert Einstein worded it better than I'm able to.

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive." -Albert Einstein

I believe that new manner of thinking is naturalistic spirituality and/or scientific pantheism. So essentially what I mean by ecological consciousness is a total transformation in the way we view our place within the ecosystem and cosmos and the actions and non-actions we take accordingly to live in harmony with nature. It doesn't seem that humanism or traditional environmentalism does much in this regard since it only requires that people maintain their strict anthropocentric view of things. I don't know if we can completely escape our anthropocentric tendencies given our reliance on language, but I think we can greatly refine it in a more eco-centric direction.

From what you have said in this thread I get a hint of transhumanism. Just noting.

I think an ecological consciousness has been coming about primarily due to the efforts of a non-spiritual view, or rather, a spiritual view was irrelevant, to the studies of the human body and ecosystems. Empirical studies made by people of non-spiritual and spiritual backgrounds have both contributed to this trend. One of the most common charges I hear about against the so called materialistic and atheistic sciences is that they have removed humanity from any special place in the universe.

And what exactly does it mean to live in harmony with nature? What, exactly, is nature?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I specifically meant using their critical thinking skills to benefit the evolution of religion and spirituality.

Why? Why should we concern ourselves with such a thing? We use our critical thinking in other areas.

Should Christians use their religion and spirituality to benefit the evolution of Islam? Should any of these faiths try to evolve each other with their critical thinking? Look at where they all are now. We don't concern ourselves with such matters. Normally we're more vocal on boards like this but in public you couldn't pick us out of a crowed if you tried. We don't care to be involved in their theistic mess.

I'm sorry if I implied atheists don't contribute to society in other ways.

For me no apology is needed. I kinda get where you're going but we just don't look at our lives through religious glasses.

I've just found terms like naturalistic spirituality to be useful in that regard. There's nothing pseudo-scientific about it.

But to an Atheist they mean nothing and we see it as pseudoscience.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

It just requires a choice to embrace the truth that we are literally made of the cosmos.

Okay. And? I can contemplate the vastness of the universe without having wet dreams about how I am a part of it all. It just isn't necessary.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm suggesting that perhaps some form of naturalistic spirituality should be expressed much more often by atheists as a possible replacement for the fantasies being destroyed by science and logic.

The only thing I offer is truth. That should be the only thing that replaces fantasy.

 

[EverChanging]

But to an Atheist they mean nothing and we see it as pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is a practice that claims to be applying the scientific method when it is not, such as "intelligent design." It claims to be a scientific theory. It is not. A naturalistic oriented spirituality does not qualify as pseudoscience. It doesn't claim to be a scientific theory; therefore it can't be pseudoscience. :\

 

[EverChanging]

The only thing I offer is truth. That should be the only thing that replaces fantasy.

A naturalistic worldview accompanied by particular religious-like feelings is not a fantasy. A fantasy is fiction or a story or more narrowly, as I assume you mean it, "not true." A person's feelings of reverence about the world are no more a fantasy than your lack of those feelings. And your perceptions of truth -- your own worldview -- is based on subjective human perceptions. Your story about the world is no less a fantasy than a story that involves a reverence for interconnection.

Reverential emotions do not count as a fantasy. Believing that myths are literal facts and history is fantasy. That is not what is being offered by the OP. I'm amazed that anyone would suggest that reverence for interconnection qualifies as a fantasy. I assume you do so because you associate it with "religion."

As for your claim that you offer "truth," I don't accept that from your mouth anymore than I would an evangelical preacher. None of us has the truth. None of us knows anything. No one has any objectivity. We are trapped within our subjective perceptions.

 

[outhouse]

Pseudoscience is a practice that claims to be applying the scientific method when it is not, such as "intelligent design." It claims to be a scientific theory. It is not. A naturalistic oriented spirituality does not qualify as pseudoscience. It doesn't claim to be a scientific theory; therefore it can't be pseudoscience. :\

the second you descibe it, it becomes pseudoscience

A naturalistic worldview accompanied by particular religious-like feelings is not a fantasy

thats not a complete desciption of OP's spirituality that he would like all atheist to follow.

A naturalistic worldview is fine and dandy

BUT if your to label pantheism as religious like feelings that is a very vague and very weak description

 

[freethinker44]

A naturalistic worldview accompanied by particular religious-like feelings is not a fantasy. A fantasy is fiction or a story or more narrowly, as I assume you mean it, "not true." A person's feelings of reverence about the world are no more a fantasy than your lack of those feelings. And your perceptions of truth -- your own worldview -- is based on subjective human perceptions. Your story about the world is no less a fantasy than a story that involves a reverence for interconnection.

Reverential emotions do not count as a fantasy. Believing that myths are literal facts and history is fantasy. That is not what is being offered by the OP. I'm amazed that anyone would suggest that reverence for interconnection qualifies as a fantasy. I assume you do so because you associate it with "religion."

All of this is irrelevant to my post. I pulled the word "fantasy" from the OP and used it in the same context it was used there. You missinterpreted what I said.

As for your claim that you offer "truth," I don't accept that from your mouth anymore than I would an evangelical preacher. None of us has the truth. None of us knows anything. No one has any objectivity. We are trapped within our subjective perceptions.

This is just superficial philosophy. It sounds good and feels deep but there is no substance there.

 

[EverChanging]

It is possible that I read over the posts too quickly without attending carefully to the meaning of the words I have criticized, in which case I apologize.

This is just superficial philosophy. It sounds good and feels deep but there is no substance there.

Here I still disagree with you. All of what you call truth is relative and filtered through subjective and flawed perceptions. Scientific data bears this out as much as anything, especially within the field of psychology. None of us has objective or absolute truth about anything. At all. And even that argument is based on indirect evidence.