Does It Matter Whether God Exists/

[Kulindahr]

I think you're absolutely right; 'wonder' being the thing that Darwin said set human animals apart. And although proof, in religious terms, might not be evident, the absence of proof is not an unequivocal denial either.

Sadly, I've known many religious people who have no sense of wonder at all, just a cold, clinical, even fanatical zeal.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have no idea. What do you mean?

Robertson publicly said it's time to end it, because all it's done is waste money and ruin lives.

 

[kallipolis]

All 3 quotes are really saying the same thing. The man wasn't crazy about religion, but neither did he discount faith altogether. I think for him faith = wonder, and the intuition that not all of human experience can be explained by science alone. In any case, looking to Einstein for spiritual guidance is as myopic as looking to the pope for scientific advice. The point is that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, never have been. The rift is entirely artificial, created to justify political agendas rather than to expose anything valuable about reality. The way I see it, people like Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson are equally guilty of fanaticism.

We are in total agreement.

 

[Darted]

I think we should focus on ourselves and not what the man in the sky sees.

 

[bankside]

I entirely agree that religion and science are 100% compatible. I think merely that this will result in many more changes to religion than to science.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Upthread, I mentioned Karen Armstrong. Over in the 'attack religion?' thread, Marqau mentioned her. I think she's worth your attention. Here she is in 2008 speaking on the theme of this thread, the nature of belief and religion.

FORA.tv - Karen Armstrong: What is Religion?

 

[Kulindahr]

Upthread, I mentioned Karen Armstrong. Over in the 'attack religion?' thread, Marqau mentioned her. I think she's worth your attention. Here she is in 2008 speaking on the theme of this thread, the nature of belief and religion.

FORA.tv - Karen Armstrong: What is Religion?

She's brilliant on the matter of faith, correctly stating that it means "trust", "commitment". It has little to do with propositions, it has to do with a personal relationship of reliance on a person. She makes very clear something I've tried to get across here multiple times: the Greek word for "faith" means trust, reliance. She also makes clear something else I've tried to get across: that while a statement about something may be considered a proposition, it is never just a proposition, it's participation; and she comes close to sopething else I've tried to get across, that while things like baptism are ceremonies that serve as symbols, they are also more than that.

I've got to hear from her about the Trinity . . . .

 

[zoltanspawn]

I recently finished de Botton's fresh and easy Religion for Atheists.

Anybody else? I think several of you might be interested...

As I suspected I would, I found lots of common ground with de Botton, and I especially enjoyed all the practical measures he imagines. Moreover, he does something many atheists don't do, which is to provide an account of religion which isn't merely caricature. I think that alone makes it worthy reading for many of us.

There's something about the utility of his thinking which strikes me as thin, though. He somehow has evaded contemplating one of the key features of religion, and that is its persuasive means. Its as though he thinks all the projects he envisions could be enacted merely by virtue of their reasonable nature, whereas the religions he's sampling know very well that humans are motivated by more complex means. Why has he not tackled, for instance, the way that faith itself (in the Christian tradition) might be used by atheists to sustain his vision? He's too bright to not have thought about it. Perhaps it was too fierce a battle, and he wisely chose not to fight it.

 

[bankside]

I recently finished de Botton's fresh and easy Religion for Atheists.

Anybody else? I think several of you might be interested...

As I suspected I would, I found lots of common ground with de Botton, and I especially enjoyed all the practical measures he imagines. Moreover, he does something many atheists don't do, which is to provide an account of religion which isn't merely caricature. I think that alone makes it worthy reading for many of us.

There's something about the utility of his thinking which strikes me as thin, though. He somehow has evaded contemplating one of the key features of religion, and that is its persuasive means. Its as though he thinks all the projects he envisions could be enacted merely by virtue of their reasonable nature, whereas the religions he's sampling know very well that humans are motivated by more complex means. Why has he not tackled, for instance, the way that faith itself (in the Christian tradition) might be used by atheists to sustain his vision? He's too bright to not have thought about it. Perhaps it was too fierce a battle, and he wisely chose not to fight it.

I haven't read the book yet though I have enjoyed his interviews and talks on the subject. At least in his speaking engagements, he has addressed the topic of persuasion and ritual and so forth. I think an approach to atheism that replicates the dogmatic and hierarchical approach to building community such as what the roman church has gifted upon us, is a worthless non-starter.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Like de Botton, another "non-new" atheist, Philip Kitcher of Columbia U.

From a recent interview:

Pragmatist that I am, I have little sympathy for strained discussions about whether God had to allow evil in order to create beings with free will, and even less for cheap gibes to the effect that religious faith is analogous to a child’s belief in the Easter bunny. Let’s be inspired by the world’s collection of religious metaphors insofar as they help us improve the human situation. Humanism first, atheism second. The atheism I favor is one in which literal talk about “God” or other supposed manifestations of the “transcendent” comes to be seen as a distraction from the important human problems — a form of language that quietly disappears.

 

[bankside]

Kitchen. A good read but his complaints have been addressed by the Four Horsemen already.

The thing about the Easter bunny is I have yet to meet a single religious person who says "The aptness of your Easter bunny analogy is moot, because my theology is not based on whether a transcendent divine being is factually real." They all take offence and say "The analogy is wrong because contrary to the Easter bunny, there is a factually real transcendent divine being."

I think this "refined religion" is primarily the product of secular humanist soft-atheist apologists for religion, rather than the religious people themselves.

That there are no "refined theologians" expounding the irrelevance of a deity or an Easter bunny is not a surprise to me. Well, there are a few Anglican clergy who might go that far. But I would guess their faith and their voction began in a much more literal place. I don't suppose I can blame them for trying to salvage a career that their conscience no longer permits them to fully embrace.

Incidentally that interview was very helpful for anyone hoping to understand the meaning of the word "literal." I know that has been a cause of some difficulty lately.

 

[TX-Beau]

Are we atheists supposed to be actively bringing the edifice of religion to it's knees? Missed the memo. Well, I'll get right on that.

I'm not sure why there is need for his distinction. None of the atheists I know care much if someone else goes to church in the first place. They care if you try to teach creationism in class - but that is not exactly unreasonable.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what he says, (I did laugh about that whole religious people having dialogues about how to better mankind in groups of concerned theists) I smell snake oil somewhere.

 

[dachsieboy2000]

Unworthy of you, and snares you in the same trap. While I may not agree with your beliefs, I read your responses for the reasoning attitude they present and do not expect such pettiness.

That you say so, it must be so.

 

[TX-Beau]

Careful, he's going to "note" you...

 

[Kulindahr]

Incidentally that interview was very helpful for anyone hoping to understand the meaning of the word "literal." I know that has been a cause of some difficulty lately.

He uses the word but I don't see where there's anything contributed to understanding the word. For that matter, I don't see where it's been a cause of any difficulty.