Can there be gods without magic?

I've dragged this one over from another conversation on LT (http://www.librarything.com/topic/155720#4170922) because it seems to fit here perfectly (and because this group seems to have gone sadly quiet lately).

There are a number of threads to the central question, these being:

1 What defines something as a religion? I have quoted a definition from Why Are You Atheists so Angry? by Greta Christina: The thing that uniquely defines religion is belief in supernatural entities. Without that belief, it's not religion. That seems like a pretty good definition to me and one that I have no problem with. We all believe in the things we can see and prove, faith only comes into it when we are talking about the unproveable.

2 Is it possible to be a sceptic and still believe in a god? To me, the answer to that one is a resounding NO, but others may well disagree.

3 Is there anyone out there who calls themselves an atheist and yet believes in other magical things? Can you be an atheist and yet believe in fairies or ghosts (I know this opens up the wider debate about all believers being atheists when it comes to someone else's gods but my question tries to leave those other 'gods' aside for a moment and address other supernatural beings or events)? Again, I'd say no, but human nature is a weird thing and I'm willing to bet there is somebody out there who feels the two are not incompatible.

4 In the (unlikely?) event that someone wants to argue that they worship a god that has no connection with the supernatural, what exactly, then, makes that being a god? Without any supernatural elements, presumably he/she is just a person? This last question refers in particular to the tendency many believers have these days to deny the supernatural elements of the Bible. When challenged on things like virgin births, miracles etc, these people insist that these parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally but, if that is so, what is special about this person they call Christ?

To me, the whole concept of the supernatural is incoherent. If something actually exists then it is natural. If it has any effect on our world then we can interact with it, study it, learn to predict it, etc.

For point 4, I've always thought that sun worship made a lot of sense. The sun regulates time and the seasons, it provides the energy that sustains us, we were made of its substance and will one day return to it, it is terrible to look upon, it freely provides its light to the deserving and underserving alike. And unlike other gods it has the benefit of actually existing.

>1 Booksloth: Is there anyone out there who calls themselves an atheist and yet believes in other magical things?

Technically I suppose you could. The word means "non-god" not "non-unicorn." But in practice atheism is characterized by a reliance on empirical evidence for what they accept is true. So in that sense, atheists don't believe in fairies.

But I think the problem revolves around how you use the word "believe" -- something that bedevils all religious/atheist conversations. A better question might be "do atheists believe in aliens?" We have zero proof of aliens. Zero evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. Or extraterrestrial life of any kind. But most people would say that given the vast size of the universe, it is extremely unlikely that there is NOT life out there. So all an atheist can say is "I don't not believe in aliens."

I think your definition of religion might be too narrow though. Would you consider a soul to be a supernatural element?

>3 southernbooklady: "I don't not believe in aliens."

I think that would make you an alien agnostic which seems a very good position to take given our current lack of information.

>1 Booksloth: As for what is a religion, I once read something about a religion includes at least some of the following attributes:

belief in one or more supernatural entities
a holy book
sacred rituals and language
priests or holy men/women
natural or constructed holy places
requirements and proscriptions for followers
regular meetings of the faithful
promises of future benefit/afterlife
distinctive clothing, hair styles or ornaments

>4 Taphophile13: a religion includes at least some of the following attributes

Well, that conflates "religion," the system of beliefs, with "religion," the political/social infrastructure that grew up around those beliefs. But I bet you could find unchurched people who would still call themselves Christians. Emerson, later in his life, maybe.

I'm a bit skeptical of a definition of "religion" that could apply to science fiction conventions :)

>6 Amtep: Hey now! Firefly all the way! If I went to such things I'd totally dress up as River Tam.

Um... how? :) She didn't have a distinctive outfit.

She had an axe!

and was always bare footed...

You forgot one thing (I think): define "magic".

From (attempts at) necromancy, over Harry Potter, to stage magic - what are we talking about? ;-)

The standard definition of "magic" is now Clarke's:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology".

#3 Excellent point - and it's back to those definitions again. How do you define a soul? I believe in the subconscious. I believe that there is a part of all of us that produces thoughts and feelings and which we have not been able to isolate physically, though we can now explain most of it with firing synapses. On the other hand, if we define the soul as the part of a person that lives on after their body has died then no, I don't believe in it and I would, I suppose, call it supernatural - though I think it would be more accurate to simply call it non-existant. Whether its existance can be proven is basically a matter of definition but the idea that whatever we choose to call a 'soul' can continue to live after it's host body has been cremated or devoured by worms must surely be a belief in the supernatural.

#5 I bet you could find unchurched people who would still call themselves Christians. That's really the essence of the whole question. If these people call themselves Christians the they presumably believe there was something special, supernatural even, about Jesus Christ. I mean, isn't the whole thing about Christianity in even it's vaguest form, a belief that JC was the son of a god and was crucified then resurrected? If that isn't supernatural I don't know what is. If, on the other hand, they don't believe this part of the myth then aren't they just worshipping some bloke?

#11 Only because in a conversation like this I would assume we are not discussing conjuring tricks. But you're quite right to ask for a definition. For my purposes, and unless it is clear that the subject has changed, when I talk about magic I am talking about things that can come about only through supernatural intervention - fairies, unicorns, gods, levitation, homeopathy, miracles etc

BTW - so good to see everyone back!

>13 Booksloth: If these people call themselves Christians the they presumably believe there was something special, supernatural even, about Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure about that. I'm not an expert by any means, but from what I understand of Emerson's mature "religion" he considered Jesus to be as close to a "perfect man" as the world had yet seen, but not in any sense "supernatural."

On the other hand, he found much to admire in the idea that all existence shared a kind of "oneness" -- although I think he would have objected to the idea that there was anything supernatural about it. "Supranatural" maybe.

And yet, his language is not the language of the empiricist who might seek to describe such a concept as the universe as a kind of superorganism--a closed system of life/death/energy/interactions.

And "soul" as a concept seems to impart more than just "subconscious." It's one of those words we use to describe the sensation we get when the whole seems to appear more than the sum of its parts. Which is why we can speak of music having "soul" because it is more than a collection of notes played in the correct order.

#14 My apologies for being unclear - when I said I believe in the subconcscious I didn't mean to suggest I think the subconscious is the whole of what we refer to as a soul but one large part of it. I don't really know how to define the soul except perhaps as a collective name for our feelings. I realise that's a hazy definition but, as far as I see, it only becomes a 'soul' once we believe it lives on after our deaths.. I don't believe that so I guess I don't believe in souls.

I know less than nothing about Emerson's beliefs but I'm not sure I would describe what you tell me about them as a religion. Believing someone is/was as close as possible to perfect is okay - of everyone who has ever walked this earth there are varying degrees of 'goodness' and so it's pretty much inevitable that someone (if we were to analyse the lives of everyone and to agree on what constitutes that goodness) who comes out at the top of the league. No doubt our opinions would differ on who that would be but I don't get how picking out the person we think of as the 'best' has anything to do with religion. a lot of people believe that Christ almost certainly existed and that he was crucified (as were hundreds of other people) and that he was probably a pretty decent guy, but that doesn't make them Christians.

As for the belief that all existence shares a common 'oneness', I've never heard that described as a tenet of Christianity though it's at the very foundation of science, humanism and atheism.

Are you regarding Christianity as the only religion? I'd say the common oneness is a critical aspect of Buddhism and many of the neo-pagan religions.

>15 Booksloth: I know less than nothing about Emerson's beliefs but I'm not sure I would describe what you tell me about them as a religion.

I've been reading Robert Richardson's biography Emerson: The Mind on Fire -- an intellectual biography of the man, so Emerson is a bit stuck in my head right now. Emerson might say he was religious, or "spiritual" -- the word they used at the time was "transcendentalist." But he ultimately rejected all external forms of religious worship in favor of the internal quest towards that one-ness. He was adamantly against what an earlier era called "superstition" -- the belief in the miraculous, the belief that the divine acted on the world as an external agent, moving things around to suit his will.

But he did think that there was "something greater" --to choose a completely fuzzy term. Something we are all part of. (He was heavily into eastern philosophy)

If you are one of those people who thinks of reality as "the science" and "the religion" then Emerson's...beliefs....were not "science."

#16 Are you regarding Christianity as the only religion? No, why would I do that?

#17 If you are one of those people who thinks of reality as "the science" and "the religion"
Forgive my ignorance but I'm not entirely sure what that means. I believe that science is where we find the bulk of our evidence that religion is, as best, wishful thinking, but I don't know if that answers the question.

>18 Booksloth:

I was using "you" in the generic sense, sorry. Badly worded.

So let me put it this way: We often tend to think of existence either empirically ("science") or metaphysically ("religion"). It may be a false division but it is one we tend to gravitate towards. I'm an empiricist, personally. Emerson, though, I think would say he was not. He wasn't religious in the organized sense--very anti organized religious, actually. But he was a "believer" in something greater than himself. Although that something was not an external supernatural entity, more like he felt (I think) that we are all, uh, 'manifestations of the One.'

Was he religious?

#19 I'm always doing that: I think we need a new word for 'generic you'. ;-)

I suppose again this refers back to my original question. To me, the answer would depend on whether that 'something greater' is something supernatural. If it is the fact that we all consist of the same basic building materials and that when we die we simply dissolve back (in one way or another, depending on how our bodies are disposed of) back into the 'molecule soup' then I don't think that makes him religious. If, on the other hand, he saw that 'something greater' as a thinking and creating entity, then it's a religion. That's just my opinion, of course, and I guess what I'm doing is answering my own question by saying that if it's supernatural and unproveable it's religion and if that isn't the case then it isn't. Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people out there who think the religion they follow has no supernatural elements and I'd love to hear what it is they think makes their passion so special as to come under that heading.

#20 I think we need a new word for 'generic you'.

One?

;)

;-)

I don't think it qualifies as "new" though.

>20 Booksloth: To me, the answer would depend on whether that 'something greater' is something supernatural.

And what if that "something greater" is considered beyond the limits of our empirical understanding but not "supernatural"? Or is anything consigned to non-empirical analysis by definition supernatural?

#22

BarkingMatt, my point exactly.

Why get a new one when we already have one on the shelf. (Oops! I did that without thinking.)

;)

#23 Which brings us back to Bob's allusion to Clarke's comment.

One? // I don't think it qualifies as "new" though.

neO.

#21 I thought of that just as I toddled off to bed last night. However, mainly thanks to terrible misuse from the British Royal family I'm not sure most people use it in that way any more and it certainly sounds archaic. How about 'Yone' - a sort of hybrid of you and one?

#23 This is getting quite esoteric (which is great!) but I need to drag it back down to earth for my own sanity and ask you to clarify just a bit, how you would define 'beyond the limits of our empirical understanding but not supernatural' (and I do apologise for constantly coming back to definitions). Perhaps you could give an example?

I would be the first to agree that we don't know everything but we do have some pretty accurate ways of testing hypotheses about the world we live in and what we know about it so far. Science, after all, never says 'this is the definite and ultimate truth', it simply says, 'this is the best we have at the moment and is the most likely explanation we have right now'. As various bits of different evidence pile up we get nearer and nearer to being able to say 'this is true/false' so I see scientific testing as a continuum of steps each approaching the truth a little nearer than the last (all of this assumes that the tests are correctly run and controlled, of course.)

This is why so many of us are as sure as we can be that gods do not exist - not because one test failed to find any evidence, but because many, many tests have been performed testing pretty much every claim religion makes and every single one of them has proved negative. Not only does this apply in the case of gods - it is, in fact, the case, that in every single test, correctly carried out, that sets 'real life' against the supernatural, and in which any meaningful results have been obtained, the supernatural turns out not to be the answer. We dfo not have to prove, for example, that the Jehovan god doesn't exist, in order to know that various claims made about him are not possible. the natural world leaves evidence behind it - things that leave no evidence at all for their existence are less likely to be true than things that leave a varifiable trail.

That's drifted a bit, I think, from the question you asked, as to whether things can be put down to 'not yet testable' and therefore whether we should give the supernatural explanations equal weight (forgive me if I've misunderstood what you were saying) then I would say we can only ever be as sure as it's possible to be given the information and evidence we have discovered so far. When empirical testing is available of whatever these things are, we already know that the explanation we would now term the supernatural one (ie. that it is something that cannot be seen or tested, even though its negative or opposite has been proven time and time again; the theory that 'god did it') is the least likely one to be true.

As far as gods are concerned, the people who claim absolute knowledge are the ones who ignore science and rely only on their faith. No matter what is proved against their theories, they will still deny that evidence and say 'It's true because I believe it's true', whereas science only says 'this is what we know to be the case so far and if real evidence ever does emerge to the contrary, then we will admit we are wrong and change our views'.

>27 Booksloth: the question you asked, as to whether things can be put down to 'not yet testable' and therefore whether we should give the supernatural explanations equal weight (forgive me if I've misunderstood what you were saying)

You have misunderstood me. My questions were focused on your definition of religion, which relies on what looks to me like a narrow conception based on a belief in the supernatural. I was just trying to point out that there are people who consider themselves religious without believing in the supernatural---the question asked by this thread.

For example: there is the notion of Gaia--the conception that the Earth is best understood as a kind of superorganism. Not supernatural at all but scientific language frequently fails to convey the full implications of this approach--science is all about understanding the whole by understanding its parts after all--and thus people find themselves using terminology better suited to religious belief to get across their sense of the interconnectedness of all things. We start to speak of epiphanies, inspirations, awe.

The truth is, human beings are hard wired with any number of perceptual limitations. We have trouble grasping more than four dimensions. We see in in a certain spectrum because the cones in our eyes see red, green, and blue. We know there are other colors out there, but we are physically incapable of grasping what they truly are, and thus we will never see the world the way the mantis shrimp does:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp

What language do we use, then to describe this aspect of existence that we know is there but we can't experience directly?

For many people, it is the language of religion. But there is nothing "supernatural" about it.

The phrase I have difficulty with here is "this aspect of existence that we know is there but we can't experience directly" (my italics) and defining the verb 'to know'. If we cannot experience something directly and have no evidence of anyone else having ever experienced it, then how accurate is it to claim that we 'know' about it? This is surely what faith comes down to - believing we know something when all we can really do is to have faith in it.

Don't get me wrong here, I have no quibble with seeing the world - the universe, in fact - as a single organism: the big bang theory tells us that's exactly what it is, but I don't see any connection withh religion there.

If we cannot experience something directly and have no evidence of anyone else having ever experienced it, then how accurate is it to claim that we 'know' about it?

We originally deduced the existence of Neptune not by observing it, but by observing the effects it had on the things around it. In fact, a fair amount of what we discover in astronomy and physics is "observed" in just this way.

I'm not trying to argue for the existence of god here. I suppose that in the end I think the gap between believer and nonbeliever is unbridgeable, because it is a matter of starting principles.

But I've watched most of the discussions on LT between atheist and believers degenerate into pointless sniping, and I'm not really interested in living my life in a constant state of war with all the religious people around me. I live in the South. That would be just about everybody.

So for me, the question becomes, are the two outlooks incompatible? If they are, we are sunk. But if they are not, where can the atheist and believer meet? And I think it might be in this kind of experiential phenomenon that continue to defy our scientific quantification. Because just as it is ridiculous for a person of faith to reject scientific discovery, it is ridiculous (and not at all scientific) for the nonbeliever to reject a believer's religious experience as "imaginary."

It's real enough to them. And the scientist doesn't reject data. He may reclassify it or hold it in abeyance pending further study, but he doesn't pretend that it doesn't exist. So ultimately, whether a person ascribes their epiphany to an inspiration from god or a complicated manifestation of a specific type of neurological phenomenon, the experience is still there.

That is why I question your original definition of religion. I think it is purposely narrow, and thus avoids an entire area of human experience that could be classified either as religious or not, depending on where you happen to be standing.

If Neptune only ever appeared on toast and if you squinted really hard at a smudgy window--then I might worry about some "grey areas" between science and religion.

But that's not the case.

As to whether the "outlooks" are incompatible--theoretically, absolutely. There is no "bridge" between "I'll test it and see what I think then, and I might change my mind any time if circumstances so warrant" and "I believe! I just DO! Because--oh, hell, heaven, fairies, teapots...!"

In fact, any theist scientist would confirm they are incompatible, because at the bench they keep their religion and their science firmly apart: they don't do science within the framework of "anything-can-happen" miracles and apparitions, and they don't apply scientific principles to their religious beliefs (if they wish to continue holding such beliefs).

That is the essential, inexorable incompatibility at the core of how science and religion look at the world. It is not a random occurrence, it is a feature of the system. The scientific approach is absolutely anti-religious by design and the only way to preserve religion in face of scientific criticism is to lock it up in some separate "domain" purportedly inaccessible to science.

As to practice, we have plenty of evidence that theoretical incompatibility (of religion and science or religions mutually) need not mean constant actual war.

But it can.

#31 Agreed. I think the only thing I would add to that is that "It's real enough to them" doesn't count as being 'real' in any normal sense. If someone believes they are Napoleon then that is real to them but it isn't real in the usual way we use the word. There seems to be a very popular argument these days that you can believe whatever you want and if it's real to you then that's enough but there is such a thing as truth. Anecdote is not the same thing as data and I would agree with Lola that the two positions are entirely incompatible because one side is in favour of evidence and facts while the other isn't.

>32 Booksloth: I would agree with Lola that the two positions are entirely incompatible because one side is in favour of evidence and facts while the other isn't.

So then the issue becomes, if the two outlooks are incompatible (which I agree with) then are the two people who espouse them? Because that's what seems to me to be at the heart of the issue of the continuing struggles between those whose lives are dictated by religious beliefs, and those whose lives are not.

"It's real enough to them" doesn't count as being 'real' in any normal sense. If someone believes they are Napoleon then that is real to them but it isn't real in the usual way we use the word.

But it's real enough to you when their belief begins to influence public policy.

if the two outlooks are incompatible (which I agree with) then are the two people who espouse them?

It's going to depend on the people, no? But also on the circumstances, the nature of the conflict...

I have never fallen out with anyone over religion but that may be because we make rational choices about what boundaries not to cross, and people who are deeply intolerant of the other-minded aren't likely to hang around them anyway.

If Neptune only ever appeared on toast and if you squinted really hard at a smudgy window--then I might worry about some "grey areas" between science and religion.

Okay, we'll burn some incense in honour of Cthulhu. But that's as far as I'll go ;-)

1

Sorry, I only just discovered this topic so I'm going to reply to you direct without reading everything else first (don't have time today!)

" The thing that uniquely defines religion is belief in supernatural entities. Without that belief, it's not religion. That seems like a pretty good definition to me and one that I have no problem with."

Unfortunately, that definition is just plain wrong, in that it is only partly true and therefore it makes the definition incorrect. It does sweep up all the ancient animist religions, plus all variants of the Western Abrahamic monotheist faiths, and the multitude of religions that Hinduism has "devolved" into.

But it ignores all the non-theist religions. I would offer up, as an obvious starting point, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta, many other strains of Buddhism, and Confucianism.

I've not addressed your points 2. 3. and 4. as this first hurdle is something we need more definition about, and needs resolving in some way. I'd like a definition of religion that doesn't depend on belief in a supernatural being, or else a modification that excludes all the non-theist "religions".

Zen Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism are seen as philosophy, not religion, by many practitioners. (I think the same is true for Taoism and Confucianism, but I've discussed the former--with people who actually WERE Buddhists--more often than the latter.)

37

That would be my understanding too, but they are generally lumped in as religions, for example in comparative religion studies. As for Advaita Vedanta, it's the philosophy from which Hinduism emerged, so a good question would be "When and how does a philosophy morph into a religion?" So we're back to definitions again..

I think I'll stick to what people who follow these traditions think, it's not that difficult to find out.

>#1 The thing that uniquely defines religion is belief in supernatural entities. Without that belief, it's not religion. That seems like a pretty good definition to me and one that I have no problem with."

>>#36 Unfortunately, that definition is just plain wrong, in that it is only partly true and therefore it makes the definition incorrect.

Well, the definition still holds if one considers the soul to be a supernatural entity.

40

Except that Buddhism doesn't believe in the soul...

#41 Buddhism requires a belief in reincarnation; that's about as supernatural as you can get.

Reincarnation is such a strange concept to me. If it was a way of recognizing that we go back into the earth from which we came, to become other life, I'd get it. We're all recycled carbon. But the idea that the consciousness or whatever somehow remains intact....that loses me.

Isn't the bit that gets reincarnated a soul?

42 44

Buddhism doesn't believe in the soul, but does believe in reincarnation - I'm still waiting to have this explained.

If reincarnation is a fact, then it is by definition not supernatural, just as birth isn't.

If reincarnation is a fact, then it is by definition not supernatural

Sure, and if the tooth fairy is a fact, &c. It's a pretty big IF though.

#45 Buddhism doesn't believe in the soul, but does believe in reincarnation - I'm still waiting to have this explained.

Me too. I do sometimes feel that this 'it's not a religion, it's a way of life' is a bit of a cop-out really.

46

No, bringing the Tooth Fairy into the discussion is not valid (which also goes for the Spaghetti Monster, flying teapots, fairies, ghosts, UFOs, etc etc). You see, none of those things are necessary beings. Those who believe in God - don't include me in that number! - do so because he/she/it is, for them, a necessary being who represents the "ultimate cause". The question of the origin of the universe or multiverse, is going to persist, even once belief in God is dead. Scientists and/or philosophers may one day be able to answer it, but until then, the question will persist.

As for what I said about existing things not being - by definition - supernatural, I'm happy you accept the logic of that. Your second sentence is simply a belief statement however. For most people in the eastern hemisphere, reincarnation is a fact. But they, nor you, nor I, could prove or disprove it.

I repeat my original question to Buddhists : IF you don't believe in a soul, then what exactly is it that reincarnates?

47

"I do sometimes feel that this 'it's not a religion, it's a way of life' is a bit of a cop-out really."

You could truthfully say that of humanism as well, though. I guess there is a lot in common between Buddhism and humanism, but I've never heard that humanists have statues!

48> I repeat my original question to Buddhists : IF you don't believe in a soul, then what exactly is it that reincarnates?

You're the one that made the statement that Buddhists don't believe in a soul in the first place, so I've been waiting for you to answer that question.

50

I can't answer the question! It's a paradox. I do know that Buddhists don't believe in a soul, and I also know that they believe in reincarnation. The two beliefs don't compute (not to me, anyway), so that's why I'd like to know how a Buddhist would answer.

Perhaps a paradox, perhaps not. http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm

I think that Gods ARE magic, in the sense that people are convinced in both that they know something because they want to be convinced. Of course, my definition of magic sees it as sleight of hand, or smoke and mirrors, or whatever. Gods don't exist except in the mind, just like magic. That's not to say that the mind's convictions aren't very powerful indeed.

52

That's a very interesting link. I hadn't realised that reincarnation wasn't specifically a Buddhist teaching. However, that leads me to the next question : if it isn't a Buddhist teaching, why is it that when a leading Lama dies, the search goes out immediately to find the child that is his 'reborn' self, to become his successor?

#48 This stuff about 'necessary beings' is just a sidetrack too, though, isn't it? Necessity is not the same as truth. Somewhere out there the is an actual, objective truth and all the evidence so far suggests that that truth does not include a god or reincarnation. Aside from food and drink, what is 'necessary' varies from one person to the next but the fact that someone thinks something is necessary is no indication as to whether it is real. The way in which the analogy holds true for the tooth fairy, FSM etc, is that no matter whether someone thinks they are necessary or not, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest they exist. It seems to me that the problem with religion is the way in which its believers think what they would like to be true is the same thing as what actually IS true.

>55 Booksloth: It seems to me that the problem with religion is the way in which its believers think what they would like to be true is the same thing as what actually IS true.

Eh. I think you could say that about almost any group of people, in almost any context: I think arts are necessary and should be part of a school curriculum. I think sexual purity is necessary and no one should be exposed to sexually explicit context. I think the pursuit of knowledge is necessary and science should be allowed to continue in any direction--even towards inventing bombs or better bio-terrorist weapons.

Those kinds of blinders aren't the special province of religious people. The only real "problem" comes in when they want to impose what they think is true on others, who might not agree with them. But once again, this is not specific to them. It's the way communities work out what guidelines they will all live by.

In my morning paper today there is an article about the fact that our State Attorney General is not going to defend the recent Amendment to our state constitution (banning gay marriage) in its upcoming court challenge. Now mind you this amendment was adopted after a public referendum, where it received 60% of the vote. So when it is eventually overturned--which seems inevitable--it will happen despite the fact that most of the people living in the state wanted it.

So one group of people (a majority) imposed a particular directive on another (a minority). And now they in turn are a minority in the larger context of the United States, and will suffer being imposed on in turn.

55

"This stuff about 'necessary beings' is just a sidetrack too, though, isn't it?"

Well, if it is, it has been a sidetrack going back to Thomas Aquinas, and before that to Aristotle who referred to the "First Cause" as his equivalent of necessary being. I assure you, it isn't something made up for LT forum topics! That's why any mention of tooth fairies and spaghetti monsters is a false analogy - which, with any real intellectual examination - collapses under the weight of its own inadequacy.

"It seems to me that the problem with religion is the way in which its believers think what they would like to be true is the same thing as what actually IS true."

That seems to be true. Many (most?) religious believers do seem to really want their beliefs to reflect what is actually true. It's the minority of philosophers and those who have experienced something which they can't explain, who approach the subject in a different way, and it's those who have adduced the concept of a necessary being. I personally reject that argument as any kind of evidence for the existence of a supernatural being (called God or whatever), but nevertheless the origin of our universe or multiverse is a question that isn't going to go away.

#56 I think you could say that about almost any group of people, in almost any context

I've got to disagree completely with that one. There's a massive, unbridgeable difference between opinion and fact. The fact that you (and I) think the arts are important is a matter of opinion; the existence or otherwise of god is a matter of fact, whether we have yet been able to prove it or not.

#57 Well, if it is, it has been a sidetrack going back to Thomas Aquinas

I must say it's been quite a while since I heard anyone who calls themselves a sceptic suggest something is good or right simply because it's been around for a long time. If that's the case, we might as well give up now asking for evidence or reasons for anything. The 'first cause' argument has for decades been the atheist's easy way to befuddle the religious because if it holdsm then there had to be a 'first cause' for the creation of gods and no eartly logic behind the belief that those gods themselves are the first cause.

Many (most?) religious believers do seem to really want their beliefs to reflect what is actually true.

And yet they seem unable to understand that this is putting the cart before the horse. When something is true and there is compelling evidence that is it true, belief isn't an issue - the truth or otherwise of something is,a gain, a fact. That's very different from making something up and then wanting it to be true. The FSM/tooth fairy analogy holds for that very reason - because even if every single person in the world wanted them to be true, they still wouldn't be.

>58 Booksloth: I've got to disagree completely with that one. There's a massive, unbridgeable difference between opinion and fact. The fact that you (and I) think the arts are important is a matter of opinion; the existence or otherwise of god is a matter of fact, whether we have yet been able to prove it or not.

I'm not able to follow your reasoning through here. Of course there is a difference between opinion and fact. Opinions are formed based on our interpretation of facts. Now sometimes those "facts" turn out to be wrong--for example, that the sun revolves around the earth. Sometimes they are based on facts (or hypothesis) that are not proven, or whose evidence is a matter of contention (the existence of God, but also the existence of extraterrestrial life, string theory). And sometimes they are based on facts that are open to different interpretations--the usefulness of teaching the arts in school, the idea that guns deter crime.

But as human beings we all navigate these "facts" and intimations of facts with varying degrees of success that has little to do with whether we are "religious" or "atheist." If there is a flaw in the atheist's argument with the believer I think it is this: that he thinks his opponent is irrational, and that by inference, he is himself "rational" and thus wins by default.

The fact is, we are all a curious mixture of both the rational and irrational, and the presence of one does not preclude the presence of the other. Atheists only do themselves a disservice when they try to move the goal posts by narrowing the definition of "god" --ei "a supernatural being' -- to something that they can easily disagree with. I happen to be a "unicorn atheist" -- someone who has about as much investment in god as I do in unicorns. The factual evidence for both to me appear on a par.

But I do recognize that person of faith perceives a real and tangible difference between the two--that god is "necessary" to them, unicorns are not. And I do recognize that there are things that are "necessary" to me are as emotional as they are factual.

When something is true and there is compelling evidence that is it true, belief isn't an issue - the truth or otherwise of something is,a gain, a fact.

"Fact" night be a weighted word here. When science talks about something being "true" it is always with a lower case t. What they really mean is that the evidence to date supports the theory to such an extent that it is the most plausible explanation for that evidence. But the door is always open to new evidence. And while the theory of species selection contained in the umbrella term "evolution" does look extremely plausible to us, if we were to discover the secret alien cache of genetic material they used to seed life onto earth...well, we'd revise our theories to accommodate the new evidence.

It is one of my big problems with religion in its organized, institutionalized incarnation: that it can't tolerate error. It can't tolerate being wrong. Whereas my perspective embraces error because even when a theory is proved wrong, we learn from it and knowledge advances.

I really don't think our views are all that far apart. When I talk about the existence of 'god' as fact, I'm not talking about people having faith s/he exists or even the fact that the overwhelming evidence suggests s/he doesn't. Regardless of what any of us think, or will ever find out, s/he either exists or does not - that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. For many years people believed the sun moved around the earth; that seemed to them to be the truth but it wasn't. Whatever they thought, it was the other way around and it was not the 'facts' that turned out to be wrong but their interpretation of them. The facts are never wrong, though they may change or be inconsistent.

You also talk about athiests trying to move the goalposts when talking about god. I find this extraordinary compared to the arguments believers give, barely even having goalposts in the first place. They (or a majority, at least) claim to believe in what they are told in a particular book - and let's not forget, that book is the only material basis they have for their belief - but as soon as any single point from that book is challenged, their beliefs change. Oh no, they never meant they believed in the bit about virgin birth; the 'miracles' are just figurative; the OT god doesn't really count etc, etc. My position that religion can be defined by an inclusion of the supernatural isn't my own, it's included in most examples where anyone has tried to create a definition of what religion is and I'm still waiting to hear someone give a definition of what constitutes a religion if they stike the supernatural part. While I'm not only talking about Christianity, I live in a largely Christian world, it is the religion I know the most about and it makes a fine example for discussion. Take all the supernatural parts out of the Bible - the burning bushes; the 'miracles'; the resurrection(s) etc and I would argue you don't have a religion, you just have a piece of, probably highly inaccurate, history.

>60 Booksloth: You also talk about atheists trying to move the goalposts when talking about god. I find this extraordinary compared to the arguments believers give, barely even having goalposts in the first place.

The point is, everybody moves the goal posts--that's life, that's the accumulation of experience and the evolution of thought. We are all doomed to our own perspective and atheists are not exempt from this--especially when discussing things like "faith." Picking on religion because of what's in a book(s) is low hanging fruit. It ignores the way those people read those books. Which, at its heart, is probably not too different than the way that I read poetry, or really transformative fiction, or react to a Rothko painting.

I'm still waiting to hear someone give a definition of what constitutes a religion if they strike the supernatural part.

I gave you a possible example in Emerson. Possibly the entire American Transcendalism movement. They wouldn't call themselves a "religion" -- something they understood in its organized, political manifestation. And they didn't "believe in" supernatural entities. But they were deeply influenced by Eastern and Indian Vedic thought (belief?).

Another example might be Pantheism -- the idea that nature is identical with divinity. That's not "supernatural," more like "supranatural."

In any case, I was merely trying to answer the original question on the thread: Can there be gods without magic? It was, perhaps, a question designed to evoke a certain answer. But I'm not really interested in standing in a room with a bunch of other people who agree with me while we pat ourselves on the back and say "See, we're right, they're wrong and just being silly." That just doesn't go anywhere. So I tried to offer a perspective that is not the cookie-cutter version of "religious people believe in imaginary friends."

Honestly, I don't think I can ever convince a religious person to be an atheist, just as they probably won't ever be able to convince me to become a believer. For that to happen, either I'd have to accept the idea that evidence and observation are not necessary, or the believer would have to accept the idea that concept of "god" needs evidentiary proof. Neither is going to happen.

But there is still plenty of common ground for between the believer and the atheist up until that point: What makes a good life? What is a moral action? What is justice? And it is in these kinds of questions that I find myself talking philosophy (or theology) with religious people, because it is in these kinds of questions I have a...uh...prayer of making an impact. Witness--the general shift towards the acceptance of homosexuality by even Christian people. We can get quite a long way together before we start fighting over first causes and prime movers.

As to the existence of God, I don't think so. But then as a rule science isn't interested in proving or disproving the existence of god. It's purview is mechanics, not "meaning."

58

I think most of the argument has been put much better than I could, by southernbooklady in 61, which I pretty much agree with, wholesale. You have to take ALL religions into account, not merely Christianity, and that includes all the Eastern ones, some of which are not theist based.

However, to address some specific points you raised with me :

"I must say it's been quite a while since I heard anyone who calls themselves a sceptic suggest something is good or right simply because it's been around for a long time."

No, I only said that because *I* thought *you* thought I had advanced the necessary being argument as one of my own, just for this discussion. I'm not a believer myself, I just don't like the shallow Tooth Fairy argument, which as I say, collapses under the weight of its own inadequacy if the torch of philosophy or even logic is shone on it (see below).

The 'first cause' argument has for decades been the atheist's easy way to befuddle the religious because if it holdsm then there had to be a 'first cause' for the creation of gods and no eartly logic behind the belief that those gods themselves are the first cause."

No, not at all. The whole point of Aristotle's query was that it was a sound philosophical query, not the flippant thing that New Atheists try to make it. He was saying that a (hypothetical) 'first cause' is different from everything else, in not itself having a cause. Your so-called 'befuddlement logic' is not valid, as if the "first cause" itself had a cause, then it would no longer be a first cause, would it? So religious believers place their belief in an uncreated God that set everything else in motion or into being.

"And yet they seem unable to understand that this is putting the cart before the horse. When something is true and there is compelling evidence that is it true, belief isn't an issue - the truth or otherwise of something is,a gain, a fact. That's very different from making something up and then wanting it to be true. The FSM/tooth fairy analogy holds for that very reason - because even if every single person in the world wanted them to be true, they still wouldn't be."

Well, quite so. And that's the difference between the Tooth Fairy (etc etc) and God - we know incontrovertibly that the former is untrue, as we ourselves invented it. But the latter doesn't follow the same argument or logic. It would be like speculating - unprovably - that there is a galaxy somewhere with a star system containing a planet where there IS a tooth fairy. It's not a fact as far as we are concerned, but it cannot be dismissed as 'untrue', as it could be true. Indeed, some physicists - especially those who believe in the multiverse theory - speculate that in an infinity of universes, there is a planet Earth identical to our own but where just one tiny detail is different; another where there are only two differences, and so on ad infinitum.

Your so-called 'befuddlement logic' is not valid, as if the "first cause" itself had a cause, then it would no longer be a first cause, would it?

But the whole thing assumes what it's trying to prove, that there is a first cause. Why does there have to be a beginning?

>60 Booksloth: Take all the supernatural parts out of the Bible - the burning bushes; the 'miracles'; the resurrection(s) etc and I would argue you don't have a religion, you just have a piece of, probably highly inaccurate, history.

On another thread I mentioned that when I was a little girl my mother took me to Monticello where I was apparently fascinated by the copy of Jefferson's bible on display with all the little bits snipped out. And when we got how, I went through a phase of copying out my "favorite" parts of books--which in the case of the bible happened to be all the action bits and the miracles.

The parables, the sermons, the letters of exhortation to various communities, the psalms, the missives on what it meant to be a good man or a follower of Christ or faithful to god...not so much. :)

if the "first cause" itself had a cause, then it would no longer be a first cause, would it?

Ehr, exactly: the underlying logic is deeply flawed. If we really are to assume that everything has some cause - then the "first cause" must have some cause too (cause number 0, cause -1, etc). You can't get much more befuddled than scholasticism. (Those guys simply refused to make any real sense - of course they used many words to hide that simple fact.).

54 If I understood what little I read about Buddhism and reincarnation properly, the question seems to depend on the ontological starting point. That is, if you take the individual human being as your basic unit, as is usually done in western thinking (even when science cuts us up into tiny, tiny pieces, it is hard to let go of that individual) then you end up with that paradox. Why do they search for a new Dalai Lama if there is no reincarnation? But since our individual egos are really part of the illusion (or something like that) what they search for might not be precisely an individual, even though it is expressed/perceived as an individual within the social reality. In a way there is reincarnation, but not as in individual souls being reborn.

Also there are many forms of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism, with it's multiple Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Demons, etc. is pretty far removed from Zen Buddhism, for instance.

66

That's the part of it I just don't understand. But as you say, maybe it's just my 'individual Western' way of thought that is to blame.

63, 65

But this is all a belief issue. Whether there is or is not a first cause of everything is not something we can currently prove. What I'd like to get away from is the 'polarity of extremes' that is involved with discussing this whole thing : God versus materialism.

I'd like to discuss the possibility that there might be some 'first cause' of the universe (or multiverse) while rejecting the notion of some kind of god or supernatural entity to explain it all away. For example, one valid question is : IF there is a first cause, can we hypothesise that science may one day be able to learn just exactly what that is?

On the other hand, we could equally speculate that there is no 'first cause' but nor is there is an endless sea of causelessness - that there is a paradox surrounding the question that our minds are too limited, too trapped in 3 dimensions, to comprehend. Which is, of course, a perfectly valid speculation - mankind does persist in a kind of arrogance that not only can we discover absolutely anything and everything, but that we can understand it too.

67

Very true. One could almost regard Zen - developed by an entirely different culture - as being a separate religion altogether from other forms of Buddhism.

68> But this is all a belief issue. Whether there is or is not a first cause of everything is not something we can currently prove.

I'd agree that the idea that there is a necessary first cause is a belief issue, but that's the theists side. The Atheist side is exactly what you said, that we don't know.

70

"The Atheist side is exactly what you said, that we don't know."

Can I propose instead that that is the agnostics' side?

>70 jjwilson61: Can I propose instead that that is the agnostics' side?

Actually, the atheist position might be better expressed "We don't know, but we have no reason to think so." --it's the reason that unicorn/tooth fairy analogies keep coming up.

Agnosticism, as far as I understand it, seems to give equal weight and probability to each side.

72

"Agnosticism, as far as I understand it, seems to give equal weight and probability to each side."

Sadly, no. That's (some) atheists' misrepresentation of the agnostic view which would be more likely expressed as "We don't know, and we haven't seen any good evidence, but if in the future God's existence is either proved or disproved, we will accept either outcome readily." In other words, there is no equal probability given to God's existence.

73> We don't know, and we haven't seen any good evidence, but if in the future God's existence is either proved or disproved, we will accept either outcome readily.

That sounds like giving equal weight and probability to each side to me.

The atheist addendum to that statement would be "...but until that proof comes in (and I'm not holding my breath) I'll just go about my business presuming the no God side."

Agnostic: The jury's still out on the existence of god.

Atheist: You don't even have enough to go to trial.

74

"That sounds like giving equal weight and probability to each side to me."

You've completely ignored the italicised part of my agnostics' "statement", which I italicised deliberately so you couldn't come back and make the statement which you actually then went ahead and made. I won't insult your intelligence by actually explaining what I meant (it needs no explanation), but I would ask politely if you wouldn't mind going back and actually re-reading what I said. Thanks.

75

LOL

Could I just add that the Agnostic part was said by the prosecution attorney! ('Believers' being the defendants here).

Agreed. While I prefer the label agnostic, I certainly don't mean to suggest I think both propositions equally likely.

The last few comments reminded me of the mock interview with a CERN physicist the day before the Large Hedron Collider was fired up.
Interviewer: What is the probability that the collider will create a black hole and destroy the Earth?
Physicist: It is 50:50. Either it will destroy the planet or it won't.

To my (non US) eyes all the above definitions sound like agnosticism. Atheism, as I would define it, is more invested in an actual belief that there is no god. My gut feeling is that in countries dominated by the concept of "faith" (like the US) a lot of atheists would like to steer away from the kind of definition that depends on a belief, but between the lines the belief that there is no god actually creeps up all the time, often poorly dressed in scientific language about proving the existence of god. Since I grew up in Sweden, where, as far as I can judge, the agnostic perspective is the socially dominant, I have no problem in saying that I believe, yes I indeed believe, that there is no god. Of course, by saying that I would lose the false position of scientific neutrality that is so important for some US atheists to maintain, possibly because they feel that they need to dethrone faith in order to let Reason dominate the country/world in its stead.

>80 auntSteelbreaker: To my (non US) eyes all the above definitions sound like agnosticism. Atheism, as I would define it, is more invested in an actual belief that there is no god.

Well I suppose if someone can define religion as "belief in a supernatural entity" then you can't complain if someone else defines atheism as "belief that the supernatural entity doesn't exist." But of course such definitions only go as far as the next person who says, "no, that's wrong."

But it doesn't describe my philosophical world view, and I think of myself as a hardcore "New Atheist" of the Hitchens/Dawkins stamp.

Defining something by the absence of a quality really only works for the person who is invested in its positive existence. Consider someone who is "amoral." Does this mean the person goes around trying to decide what moral directives to flout on a given day? No, it means that whatever decision making process he or she uses, the moral considerations others might feel that would constrain their choices simply don't come into play.

Another example I've used on other threads is asexuality. Sexual desire is such a basic part of our existence that we can hardly imagine life without it. So what happens when we meet a truly asexual person? Are we to assume they navigate their world constantly checking to see if their libido is still absent? Or is that just--horny creatures that we are--the only way we can relate to them because we have no common point of reference?

The odds are, the asexual just goes through life focused on other things....or would do, if we, the sex-mad lobby, didn't insist on throwing "sex" into every conversation.

So what happens when we meet a truly asexual person?

As far as I know we are supposed to assume they don't exist - even if you're staring one in the face. (Kidding, sorry, but you get my drift.)

80
Defining something by the absence of a quality really only works for the person who is invested in its positive existence.

If I should judge from the information gathered on the Swedish Wikipedia page on atheism, the word tends to cover the whole range of meaning from what I would rather call agnosticism to the certainty that there is no god. In a way our disagreement might be a question about whether it means no god (atheos) or no religion. But in both cases the word or label doesn't really mean anything if there is no religion in your world or society. Whatever definition you use, it is a rather reactive identity, it is based on an absence. Just like calling yourself amoral probably would be a way to distance yourself from some kind of moralistic way of thinking that you don't like. I very rarely call myself an atheist, because it is not an issue where I live my life.

But it doesn't describe my philosophical world view, and I think of myself as a hardcore "New Atheist" of the Hitchens/Dawkins stamp.

Well, radical ... in the US it seems it would be to some extent radical to say you do not believe in god. ;) Trying to refute faith by stressing Reason (as I have the impression the so called hard core new atheism likes to do) does not challenge the content of the dominant Christian definition of faith and in that regard it is not radical. And what about beliefs among atheists and agnostics? A lot of people do believe in evolution and natural selection, often without knowing much about the theories and in many cases knowing absolutely nothing about the connection between empirical and theoretical notions within the field. But they (we) take a lot of this for granted, as the scientific and Rational truth that we have been told by those who know. If we add the fact that a lot of this can only be theorized (and never empirically researched) I think we meet one of the definitions offered on religion above (by Booksloth? even though you probably didn't agree.) Is evolution a religion? I don't know, but to a lot of people (including many hard core new atheists, I'm sure) it is a strong belief.

83

"I very rarely call myself an atheist, because it is not an issue where I live my life."

Which reminds me of something that Dr Jonathon Miller said - he doesn't like the term "atheist" because it implies actively disbelieving in God, whereas to him, the whole question was simply not an issue. In other words "God" wasn't an issue for him, and he had no investment in disbelieving in something that was a nothingness to him.

"Is evolution a religion?"

rrp would have us believe that some atheists regard evolution heterogeneously as theists regard God, but I think most of us would decry that. The fact is, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, so it is barely disputable. It is more held to be 'anti-religious' by fundamentalist Christian believers, who thereby set up a straw religion of it. Scientists do not.

>83 auntSteelbreaker: "I very rarely call myself an atheist, because it is not an issue where I live my life."

Whereas I live in the American South, a notch away from the buckle of the Bible Belt. People ask me what church I go to like they ask me how my mother is doing. So I say none. And if they ask me if I believe in God I have to say "no" because "I don't think about it" is an invitation for a speech about the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

But like Dr. Jonathan Miller, left to myself, I really don't think about it.

It's interesting to note that the 'magic' went out of the original question at a very early stage, but it's fascinating to see so many people prepared to dispute at length on the stuff that's left.