The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

When do you see it as having done that?

Also, no, Hinduism is not polytheism. Some Hindus might be called polytheists, but generally Hindus believe in one God. There is not a single prominent teacher in the tradition who teaches polytheism, at least for the last couple centuries, and generally speaking not before that either. Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Sathya Sai Baba, Amma, Yogaswami, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi etc. None teach polytheism. I recognise that your familiarity is more focused on the Christian tradition.

Yes, of course they, each individual person who calls themselves Hindu, only worships one god... That they choose from a pantheon of Hindu gods. It is more complicated, but traditionally Hindus have believed in a pantheon of gods that are all portions of a much greater individual god. Modern influences from surrounding lands and many Islamic invasions of the Indian subcontinent have diluted the beliefs and forced some evolution in Hindu thought/culture, but at it's core it is considered polytheistic.

 

[Kirran]

Yes, of course they, each individual person who calls themselves Hindu, only worships one god... That they choose from a pantheon of Hindu gods. It is more complicated, but traditionally Hindus have believed in a pantheon of gods that are all portions of a much greater individual god. Modern influences from surrounding lands and many Islamic invasions of the Indian subcontinent have diluted the beliefs and forced some evolution in Hindu thought/culture, but at it's core it is considered polytheistic.

I am of Hindu tradition myself.

By who, precisely, is it considered polytheistic?

 

[PureX]

Morality fulfils this function perfectly adequately - if we all work towards a consensus (not that difficult) - such that, apart from any notion of God or gods, which some of us can leave on the shelf, we could exist perfectly well without religions. Plenty to occupy our minds besides religious beliefs after all.

Morality is based on ethical imperative. And we each have to decide for ourselves what our ethical imperatives are. Religions try to influence our choices in this regard, and in many cases our religions make our choices for us, when we're too frightened, weak, or lazy to take that responsibility on for ourselves. But they also provide us with some excellent tools to help us focus and follow our chosen ethical imperatives. To ignore or disregard these tools would be both dishonest and foolish.

 

[PureX]

To me, a religion is a set of ideas that a group of people passes from generation to generation and the group uses those ideas - to some degree - to guide how they live their lives.

What's your definition of religion?

Religions are a collection of images, rituals, practices, dogmas and rules intended to help their adherents live life according to a specific theological paradigm. Religions don't control anyone. They provide people with the tools to control themselves.

 

[PureX]

That is exactly what the faithful are exhorted to do - believe without doubt.

Some, not all, and not most.

When people say that their faith is strong, it means that they don't experience doubt, or that if it does crop up, they squelch it immediately, perhaps by praying.

Some, not all, and not most. Most theists understand that faith is a choice based on hope, not on some pretense of knowledge. And that faith begins with the acknowledgement and acceptance of doubt.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I am of Hindu tradition myself.

By who, precisely, is it considered polytheistic?

OK, did what I say run counter to Hindu beliefs? Hindus believe there is only one Supreme Being, Brahman; they pursue knowledge of Truth and Reality; they strive for moral order and right action; and they promote tolerance, but they also worship a variety of gods and goddesses who personify aspects of Brahman; take pilgrimages to holy sites; celebrate festivals throughout the year; and believe that time is cyclical (reincarnation aspects)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Morality is based on ethical imperative. And we each have to decide for ourselves what our ethical imperatives are. Religions try to influence our choices in this regard, and in many cases our religions make our choices for us, when we're too frightened, weak, or lazy to take that responsibility of for ourselves. But they also provide us with some excellent tools to help us focus and follow our chosen ethical imperatives. To ignore or disregard these tools would be both dishonest and foolish.

I think morality seems to have evolved from what works to enhance community life, and as we have become much more numerous, obviously they will change so as to reflect this. They might be codified in all sorts of ways and given respectability in various ways - through religions or philosophy, for example - but I doubt we need a variety of different moral values, which unfortunately is often what religions do. So, as in other ways, religions for me are hardly helping here.

 

[Kirran]

OK, did what I say run counter to Hindu beliefs? Hindus believe there is only one Supreme Being, Brahman; they pursue knowledge of Truth and Reality; they strive for moral order and right action; and they promote tolerance, but they also worship a variety of gods and goddesses who personify aspects of Brahman; take pilgrimages to holy sites; celebrate festivals throughout the year; and believe that time is cyclical (reincarnation aspects)

Like, it's not really polytheism. And it's not at all 'king ruling a kingdom'. God is to be found in the heart and in the world, same as people of many different traditions have said. Where did you copy and paste that stuff from?

Also, reincarnation is just a fact of life for people believing it - it's not something to be preoccupied about for a lot of people, in the way that many Christians are preoccupied about getting into heaven.

 

[Enoch07]

don't recall the last time Richard Dawkins, for example, said that theists were going to suffer eternal punishment for their theism, or the last time Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or any other prominent New Atheist said something nearly as bigoted as some very common beliefs among Christian and Muslim communities (going into the details of which would easily require its own thread).

It's out there. Its just ignored.

The Temple Of Reason - The Sun Magazine

Quoting Harris from that article.

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

As far as Dawkins goes here ya go.

Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee

 

[stvdv]

Like, it's not really polytheism. And it's not at all 'king ruling a kingdom'. God is to be found in the heart and in the world, same as people of many different traditions have said. Where did you copy and paste that stuff from?
.

Hinduism For Dummies Cheat Sheet - dummies
hinduism-for-dummies-cheat-sheet/
That's where it's mentioned to the T. [so might come from here]
I don't believe in coincidence...hinduism-for-dummies-cheat-sheet....how beautiful the universe is answering us.

I studied engineering. Took 5 years. So when I started with hinduism and met a saint, I thought, oke engineering I needed 5 years. Now we are talking God - stuff. Let's start with 3years before opening my mouth claiming I know stuff. I ended staying 10years in total.

Still I don't claim to know much about Hinduism.

I kind of find it funny, that some people google [it took me 10 sec to find the above "dummy cheat"] and then think they know all about it.
[yesterday this also happened to me on this forum, he also googled and "knew" and started teaching me; so very funny]
[I love this forum more and more every day]

 

[PureX]

I think morality seems to have evolved from what works to enhance community life, and as we have become much more numerous, obviously they will change so as to reflect this. They might be codified in all sorts of ways and given respectability in various ways - through religions or philosophy, for example - but I doubt we need a variety of different moral values, which unfortunately is often what religions do. So, as in other ways, religions for me are hardly helping here.

The problem is that we are torn between the ethics of selfishness vs. the ethics of a human collective. Often these align, but just as often they don't. And although religions tend to try and steer us toward collective ethics, we humans still fall into selfishness, religious or not. So the religions may say one thing, while their adherents practice something else. Blaming religion for this, because it often fails at it's intent, is both foolish and ineffective. It's like blaming AA because it didn't cure your dad's alcoholism. AA can't cure alcoholism, and it help your dad because your dad didn't want it to. Religions can't make people be better people. Religions are just a set of tools that people can use for whatever purpose they choose.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The problem is that we are torn between the ethics of selfishness vs. the ethics of a human collective. Often these align, but just as often they don't. And although religions tend to try and steer us toward collective ethics, we humans still fall into selfishness, religious or not. So the religions may say one thing, while their adherents practice something else. Blaming religion for this, because it often fails at it's intent, is both foolish and ineffective. It's like blaming AA because it didn't cure your dad's alcoholism. AA can't cure alcoholism, and it help your dad because your dad didn't want it to. Religions can't make people be better people. Religions are just a set of tools that people can use for whatever purpose they choose.

True, but the various faiths in themselves often conflict, so hardly helping. I just find it implausible that we just can't do without religions, and as you say, religion is often very much in the background for many or even most.

 

[PureX]

True, but the various faiths in themselves often conflict, so hardly helping.

They conflict because they have different theological ideals, and imperatives. And therefor somewhat different sets of tools intended to help people pursue them. Variety is good, not bad.

I just find it implausible that we just can't do without religions, and as you say, religion is often very much in the background for many or even most.

Then perhaps MORE religion is the solution, not less. Or perhaps religion was never the problem, nor the cure for the problem. Perhaps our own selfishness is the problem, and only we can choose to see and change that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

They conflict because they have different theological ideals, and imperatives. And therefor somewhat different sets of tools intended to help people pursue them. Variety is good, not bad.

Not from my perspective. They just developed rather naturally, as for most other things, where the conditions for them to thrive gave rise to them - and why they differed - location and circumstances. Nothing else is really needed to explain that. Just look at all the various more primitive communities - Jared Diamond's work, for example. The morality varied between different communities in different valleys, so it's quite as likely that religious beliefs would too.

Then perhaps MORE religion is the solution, not less. Or perhaps religion was never the problem, nor the cure for the problem. Perhaps our own selfishness is the problem, and only we can choose to see and change that.

Humans will be what they are regardless - religions for me just complicate the issue. I can understand why we have so many and why so many are so attached but I think others could live their lives just as well if they just dismissed the questions that religions attempt to answer. Why does it matter if there is or isn't a God, and what might happen after death? We humans are just so inclined to search for meanings that I think this is just a step too far - and which tends to cause more problems than it solves. For me anyway.

 

[Windwalker]

Humans will be what they are regardless - religions for me just complicate the issue.

But if humans being humans are what they are regardless, and humans being humans created religions for themselves, why do you see this as complicating the issue? They created them for a purpose. Has that purpose in humans vanished?

Perhaps your issue isn't with religions, but certain varieties of them which don't work for today as they used to in the past? This is understandable. This is why there are religions which no longer sacrifice animals, or other primitive expressions, because those sorts of religious practices don't speak to the modern mind very well. So humans create modern religions which appeal to the modern mind and help it on its spiritual path. What is unnatural about this, according to you?

I can understand why we have so many and why so many are so attached but I think others could live their lives just as well if they just dismissed the questions that religions attempt to answer.

What you're saying is get rid of the big questions of life which people turn to religions to give some insights into. That is not realistic in the least. Those are the deepest human questions, of life, and existence, purpose, and meaning, happiness and fulfillment, etc. Is the alternative to religious questions the unthinking mind, drinking beer and watching football, screwing, eating, sleeping, rinse and repeat until we die?

What of those humans who find living life this way to be totally unsatisfying? Where do you propose they look for guidance? Nowhere? Stop being the kind of human being that asks such questions in the first place?

Why does it matter if there is or isn't a God, and what might happen after death? We humans are just so inclined to search for meanings that I think this is just a step too far - and which tends to cause more problems than it solves. For me anyway.

I would completely disagree it goes one step too far for those like myself. In fact, I would argue the failing of modern atheism is that it falls quite a number of steps too short of actually dealing with the bigger questions of life and existence. Where is its answer to the big questions? Ignore them as the solution? How does that work with being human?

I think this is central to this very issue. What philosophy of living does neo-atheism embrace that would speak to the hearts, minds, and souls of those who are looking for Ultimate Reality? Tell them they're fools and they should give up on such silly goals? That falls way too short intellectually, psychologically, philosophically, and spiritually for those like myself who know how short sighted and myopic of view of the reality of being human in this universe that is.

Is neo-atheism to be understood in this context as a more comfortable alternative to religious sentiments for those who don't seek to understand the nature of their own beingness? Or does it help point in that direction somehow in its positions that will enhance and help those who seek Truth on this level in ways that traditional religions cannot? What might those be? What practices or injunctions does it offer to those in religion with these questions, that atheism offers a truer light and path for them to find Truth at that level?

 

[Looncall]

But if humans being humans are what they are regardless, and humans being humans created religions for themselves, why do you see this as complicating the issue? They created them for a purpose. Has that purpose in humans vanished?

Perhaps your issue isn't with religions, but certain varieties of them which don't work for today as they used to in the past? This is understandable. This is why there are religions which no longer sacrifice animals, or other primitive expressions, because those sorts of religious practices don't speak to the modern mind very well. So humans create modern religions which appeal to the modern mind and help it on its spiritual path. What is unnatural about this, according to you?


What you're saying is get rid of the big questions of life which people turn to religions to give some insights into. That is not realistic in the least. Those are the deepest human questions, of life, and existence, purpose, and meaning, happiness and fulfillment, etc. Is the alternative to religious questions the unthinking mind, drinking beer and watching football, screwing, eating, sleeping, rinse and repeat until we die?

What of those humans who find living life this way to be totally unsatisfying? Where do you propose they look for guidance? Nowhere? Stop being the kind of human being that asks such questions in the first place?


I would completely disagree it goes one step too far for those like myself. In fact, I would argue the failing of modern atheism is that it falls quite a number of steps too short of actually dealing with the bigger questions of life and existence. Where is its answer to the big questions? Ignore them as the solution? How does that work with being human?

I think this is central to this very issue. What philosophy of living does neo-atheism embrace that would speak to the hearts, minds, and souls of those who are looking for Ultimate Reality? Tell them they're fools and they should give up on such silly goals? That falls way too short intellectually, psychologically, philosophically, and spiritually for those like myself who know how short sighted and myopic of view of the reality of being human in this universe that is.

Is neo-atheism to be understood in this context as a more comfortable alternative to religious sentiments for those who don't seek to understand the nature of their own beingness? Or does it help point in that direction somehow in its positions that will enhance and help those who seek Truth on this level in ways that traditional religions cannot? What might those be? What practices or injunctions does it offer to those in religion with these questions, that atheism offers a truer light and path for them to find Truth at that level?

As to these "big questions", they look bogus to me: just made-up guff designed to con the gullible.

 

[stvdv]

Why does it matter if there is or isn't a God, and what might happen after death? We humans are just so inclined to search for meanings that I think this is just a step too far - and which tends to cause more problems than it solves. For me anyway

A):
Why does it matter if there is or isn't a God?
Just a hypothetical question: God knocks on your door, do you open it or not?

B): what might happen after death?
Just a hypothetical question: Death knocks on your door, do you open it or not?

I would go for question A): first, not to avoid B): but I must admit I am intrigued in this matter, IF it is for real. When some evangelist knock on my door I might even choose B): At least it's for real, and 99.999% of the evangelists are not for real, causing indeed more problems than they solve.

 

[Windwalker]

As to these "big questions", they look bogus to me: just made-up guff designed to con the gullible.

To you. But not to those where those questions originate from within themselves, not from outside of them. You do seem to unscore my point here though, that neo-atheism solves the religious question by denying its validity. Yet, humans have asked that question, and religions are born from them. That you don't get it, that it's not valid to you, does not mean others don't in fact get it, and the questions are not entirely valid to them.

That's all just a major projecting one's own truth on to others, that they should think as you do, in order to be sensible, such as one see oneself as being. If they don't think like you, and are motivated by other things from within themselves, for one to conclude they must foolish or gullible, is itself a foolish thought; not careful, not logical, and not rational.

Hence, neo-atheism falls far short of the goal. It deconstructs, then adds nothing helpful. It throws all the chess pieces onto the floor and declares itself the winner, it seems.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But if humans being humans are what they are regardless, and humans being humans created religions for themselves, why do you see this as complicating the issue? They created them for a purpose. Has that purpose in humans vanished?

Whoever said humans were not fallible? There might be plenty of reasons why we have created them but that doesn't necessarily justify them. I'm sure we all know that humans are the ultimate learning machines and often seeing meaning where there is none - pareidolia is an example of this. The control issue might be one of the main reasons why they have developed - the man with the big stick and all.

Perhaps your issue isn't with religions, but certain varieties of them which don't work for today as they used to in the past? This is understandable. This is why there are religions which no longer sacrifice animals, or other primitive expressions, because those sorts of religious practices don't speak to the modern mind very well. So humans create modern religions which appeal to the modern mind and help it on its spiritual path. What is unnatural about this, according to you?

For me, they are all just a step too far, and an unnecessary one at that. I think that most could probably live quite happily, and function as well as any others, without religious beliefs. The evidence seems to show this, in that non-believers tend to be just as moral as religious believers, and often the non-believers tend to be more realistic too - just like introverts tend to be over extroverts apparently.

What you're saying is get rid of the big questions of life which people turn to religions to give some insights into. That is not realistic in the least. Those are the deepest human questions, of life, and existence, purpose, and meaning, happiness and fulfillment, etc. Is the alternative to religious questions the unthinking mind, drinking beer and watching football, screwing, eating, sleeping, rinse and repeat until we die?

I don't think that is true at all. How many conversations really revolve around religious beliefs? Very few I would say, since, as with politics, religion is usually off the menu for most discussions. Most people don't really need religion in their lives. It has been so for a long time but as we can see from the decline in religious beliefs, many are apparently quite happy to ditch religions. And I don't think we are any worse off now than we ever were. We still have many problems of course but we are just as well off, or better, than ever.

What of those humans who find living life this way to be totally unsatisfying? Where do you propose they look for guidance? Nowhere? Stop being the kind of human being that asks such questions in the first place?

Change doesn't have to be that quick, so those with religious beliefs no doubt can carry on as before - no issues with that - but as per the thread about teaching to children, I think if children were not taught so young then religions might die out faster.

I would completely disagree it goes one step too far for those like myself. In fact, I would argue the failing of modern atheism is that it falls quite a number of steps too short of actually dealing with the bigger questions of life and existence. Where is its answer to the big questions? Ignore them as the solution? How does that work with being human?

What exactly do the big questions do for humans? The answers, from all sorts of seers, seem to just cause conflict between us. It might be different if there was only a single answer to each question but there isn't. Everyone seems to have a particular interpretation of these questions - and how many will actually be correct?

I think this is central to this very issue. What philosophy of living does neo-atheism embrace that would speak to the hearts, minds, and souls of those who are looking for Ultimate Reality? Tell them they're fools and they should give up on such silly goals? That falls way too short intellectually, psychologically, philosophically, and spiritually for those like myself who know how short sighted and myopic of view of the reality of being human in this universe that is.

Is neo-atheism to be understood in this context as a more comfortable alternative to religious sentiments for those who don't seek to understand the nature of their own beingness? Or does it help point in that direction somehow in its positions that will enhance and help those who seek Truth on this level in ways that traditional religions cannot? What might those be? What practices or injunctions does it offer to those in religion with these questions, that atheism offers a truer light and path for them to find Truth at that level?

Philosophy alone for me would cope with all this without too much referencing of any divine nature or anything tied to this. For me, it's just a step too far - with our present knowledge at least.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A):
Why does it matter if there is or isn't a God?
Just a hypothetical question: God knocks on your door, do you open it or not?

B): what might happen after death?
Just a hypothetical question: Death knocks on your door, do you open it or not?

I would go for question A): first, not to avoid B): but I must admit I am intrigued in this matter, IF it is for real. When some evangelist knock on my door I might even choose B): At least it's for real, and 99.999% of the evangelists are not for real, causing indeed more problems than they solve.

I'm willing to wait until the end to find out.