“You don’t have to believe in God to pray.”

[Jim__]

An excerpt from a short article, Religion, Theism, and Atheism:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that we learn more from persons we disagree with than those we agree with. That sentiment was confirmed for me while reading three recent intelligent books by the “New, New Atheists.” Tough-minded critics of religion, they “take pleasure in laying bare the idiocy of believers in remorseless detail.”

...

Young people regarding themselves as “spiritual,” rather than “religious,” is the most obvious indication of organized religion’s failure to meet the needs of thoughtful seekers of all ages. They may regard religion’s definition of itself as inadequate or nonsensical, and find it difficult not only to comprehend, but also to apprehend “the other.”

Or, disillusioned with God’s indifference to holocausts, world wars, and nuclear armaments, they toss out the whole construct or embrace atheism.

A positive alternative, according to several theologians, is to dispense with traditional attributes of God as person, and to attend to attributes — love, creativity, justice — that we regard as essential to Being.

more ...

[trotsky]

1. Really?

Faitheists, who think highly of religion and god belief even though they are atheists, as well as open-minded theists who want to discard the anthropomorphic attributes of "god" are being so incredibly patronizing to believers. Treating them like children - "There, there. If you need a god, you should believe in one!" - while chuckling to themselves at the primitive level of belief.

Why not challenge people? We humans are capable of so much more.

But I do love the same old tired bashing of atheists - we're cold, unfeeling, don't understand religion, don't appreciate ritual, yada yada. He sure showed that straw man a thing or two, by golly!

[mr blur]

2. "Hasa Diga Eebowai"

patronising drivel.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. How could anyone guess that Alain de Botton would be mentioned?

[Warpy]

4. Oh, it's just so nice to be patted on the head

by such a monumentally superior creature as Mr. True. How very kind of him to be so accepting of us by pigheadedly refusing to come to terms with the fact that we're not disillusioned with god, we've just never seen any evidence of one and are too honest to pretend we have just to soothe his ruffled feathers.

This is just the sort of smarmy, patronizing article that makes us, the mildest and least violent of people, want to kill.

No, Mr. True, you are not going to suck us into your churches if you simply stop anthropomorphizing god and instead term anything you like as god, even a good bowl of bean soup, because you feel a need to come together with your like minded fellows and engage in ritual flattery in groups.

[Jim__]

13. "This ... patronizing article that makes us, the mildest and least violent of people, want to kill."

Us? Who is us? And, if this short, mild article makes you want to kill then you probably want to reconsider your self-classification as among the mildest and least violent of people.

[Warpy]

26. And you would do well

to stop trying to psychoanalyze people you do not know.

It never turns out well.

[Jim__]

28. Responding to what is explicitly stated in your post is not an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone.

[edhopper]

5. At first I want to dismiss this

Embracing religious ceremony while refuting the underlying meaning and truth seems futile.
But then i think he does have a point in this.
The social and community aspects of religious ceremonies doe serve a purpose and enrich us. Finding new secular celebrations to replace the religious ones I think would be a positive step.
Not compelled be God or guilt or fear of punishment, but by a sense of community and good deeds.
Earth Day comes to mind.

[trotsky]

6. And if that's all it were, I wouldn't have a problem either.

But the underlying theme is that people need some kind of mystical, religion-like meaning in order to place value on something. I find that to be not only patronizing but incredible question-begging.

BTW, using Earth Day as an example plays pretty well into the right wing meme that environmentalism is a religion...

[edhopper]

7. No Earth Day is exactly the right example

I disagree with the writer about keeping the religious ceremonies. I am talking about replacing them.
The type of ceremonies, absent the mystical-religious trappings would be of benefit.
Whatever your group is; democrats, secularist, environmentalist, scifi fans, car enthusiast.
Community meetings can benefit us all (well not Klan rallies, but you get the point)

[trotsky]

8. We should be doing things like protecting the environment, caring for others, etc.

Because they are the right things to do for a functional, sustainable society. We have reason and observation to confirm this.

Not because they are magically special for some unknown reason, which is what the author seems to want to push.

So I think we're pretty much in agreement.

[edhopper]

11. Yes that is it.

But there is an added benefit when we come together for those causes or mutual commonalities.
The author is wrong about keeping religious ceremonies, but the kernel of a good idea can be found there, moving beyond his specific theme.

[Jim__]

14. People are social by nature.

I worked as a software engineer for a number of years. A woman I worked with used to come and sit next to me and ask me to just listen to her. She'd tell me about some problem she was unsuccessfully trying to resolve. After describing the problem to me she'd usually thank me and say she knew the answer now. I knew what she meant. I had never thought of it in the same terms that she had, but I'd had the same experience. After working for hours or even days unsuccessfully trying to resolve a problem, just talking to someone else was sufficient for me to see the solution.

People are social by nature and it would not really be surprising if our problem solving skills were stronger in some type of group setting than a solitary setting. People are also tend to be religious. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a connection.

[cbayer]

9. Beware. de Botton is not a true scotsman and will be dismissed out of hand here.

[cleanhippie]

10. *sigh*

Really, cbayer? Really?

Never one to miss a chance to disappoint, I'm glad to see you are on top of your game.

[trotsky]

12. Why do you keep trying to pull that stunt?

Has ANYONE here said de Botton isn't an atheist?

That's required for a NTS fallacy - are you aware of that fact?

Just makes you look sadly uninformed to continue whistling that tired tune.

[dmallind]

17. No

That's required for a NTS fallacy - are you aware of that fact?

You'd think so after multiple corrections including links to .edu definitions and examples pointing it out.

The choice is between intentional ignorance and dishonest attempts to sway ignorant readers. I can't quite work out which.

[rug]

27. What is a "faitheist"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121840599#post1

Is that someone less than an "atheist" or just generic scorn?

[trotsky]

33. What do you think it is? n/t

[rug]

34. I think it's a lame slam on any atheist you scorn.

[trotsky]

38. Then you would be wrong.

I explain exactly what I mean by the term in that post. Perhaps you should read it again.

And at any rate, I'm not denying they're atheists, which is the point here.

[rug]

39. This?

Faitheists, who think highly of religion and god belief even though they are atheists, as well as open-minded theists who want to discard the anthropomorphic attributes of "god" are being so incredibly patronizing to believers. Treating them like children - "There, there. If you need a god, you should believe in one!" - while chuckling to themselves at the primitive level of belief.

Patronizing chucklers? I'm surprised you didn't call them Uncle Tom atheists which is the other term au courant.

[trotsky]

40. Yeah, that!

And again, I've never denied they are atheists, which AGAIN, is the point of this subthread. Keep on trying to derail if you want.

[rug]

41. No, you do admit they are atheists but you also treat them as "special" atheists.

Not nearly as stalwart as you.

[trotsky]

42. "Special?" Ha.

I just disagree with that patronizing approach. I think religious believers are intelligent enough to be confronted head-on about their beliefs.

Would you rather be viewed as a simpleton and patted on the head?

[rug]

43. No you don't "just disagree". You scorn them.

[trotsky]

44. Oh my goodness.

If I do, I hope their feelings aren't hurt.

What do you think about Bill Donohue?

[rug]

45. It tkes much more than an anonymous internet poster named trotsky to hurt my feelings.

Besides, I'm not a "faitheist".

Oh, and Donohue is an asshole. One of many I've encountered.

[trotsky]

46. Sounds like you scorn him!

But he's a Catholic just like you - so what does that mean?

[rug]

47. I thought we were done.

I'd be disappointed but this is expected.

BTW, Harris is an atheist, just like you. He's also an Islamaphobe racist. So what does that mean?

[trotsky]

48. I dunno, rug - you're the one who decided to harp on me for allegedly "scorning" someone.

You tell me what it means.

Or just defer with another snarky one-liner so you can get your precious last word in.

[rug]

49. You're the one who decided to scorn fellow atheists.

Whatever floats your boat.

[cleanhippie]

37. Sadly uniformed, or just plain sad?

I'm going with just plain sad.

[Jim__]

15. True; but the line about prayer comes from Unamuno.

I guess I'll have to read some of his stuff. From wikipedia:

Unamuno's philosophy was not systematic, but rather a negation of all systems and an affirmation of faith "in itself." He developed intellectually under the influence of rationalism and positivism, but during his youth he wrote articles that clearly show his sympathy for socialism and his great concern for the situation in which he found Spain at the time. An important concept for Unamuno was intrahistoria. He thought that history could best be understood by looking at the small histories of anonymous people, rather than by focusing on major events such as wars and political pacts.

Unamuno's Del Sentimiento Trágico de la Vida (The Tragic Sense of Life) (1912) as well as two other works — La Agonía del Cristianismo (The Agony of Christianity) (1931) and his novella "San Manuel Bueno, mártir" — were included on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Unamuno summarized his personal creed thus: "My religion is to seek for truth in life and for life in truth, even knowing that I shall not find them while I live." [4] He said, "Among men of flesh and bone there have been typical examples of those who possess this tragic sense of life. I recall now Marcus Aurelius, St. Augustine, Pascal, Rousseau, Rene, Obermann, Thomson, Leopardi, Vigny, Lenau, Kleist, Amiel, Quental, Kierkegaard--men burdened with wisdom rather than with knowledge."[5] He provides a stimulating discussion of the differences between faith and reason in his book The Tragic Sense of Life.

A historically influential paperfolder, from childhood to his last, difficult days, in several works Unamuno ironically expressed philosophical views of Platonism, Scholasticism, positivism, and the "science vs religion" issue in terms of 'origami' figures, notably the traditional Spanish pajarita.[6]

[cbayer]

19. Have not heard of him previously, but his philosopy appears quite complicated.

At least to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. no de Botton is an atheist who likes pompous rituals and the trappings of woo

he's just a an asshole fascinated with cathedrals.

[cbayer]

18. Well, there you go!

[trotsky]

21. Yep, there you go.

"de botton is an atheist." Again, no one is denying that he's an atheist. We laugh at him for his peculiarities and crazy ideas, but yep, he's an atheist.

So the rest of us see your smiley as laughing at YOU for your misuse of the NTS fallacy claim.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. clearly you are tickling yourself.

do you get what anyone has said here regarding your misuse of the NTS claim? By the way I also disagree with Harris regarding his islamophobic idiocy and Dawkins regarding his misogynist bullshit, in neither case am I disputing that they are atheists. What part of that do you really not get?

[cbayer]

23. Just tickling myself, Warren. Don't take it too seriously.

It's a longstanding joke. I get it just fine.

[trotsky]

24. Thanks for raising the tone, cbayer.

Just remember, you get what you give.

[Thats my opinion]

20. Reality is deeper than religion--or any one religion.

Religion, ritual, is perhaps the most common way to access the depth of human experience.
But is it not the only way. Kant claimed that it was the starry heavens above and the moral law within.
You cite unnamed theologians--believe me there are many of them. I too hold that seeing God as a person ultimately means that all we have is a God who is a higher representation of the culture which defined that personal God. For billions of people that is about all they can understand. But for many others it is insufficient. A couple of decades back in a book I defined God as "power with a purpose." "energy". It is the ungrunt of Bergson. It is the Omega point of de chardin. It is the ethical imperative built into the universe, Many people find a way to be accessed by this deepest of all realities through religion. Many do not. There is room for both.

[Jim__]

25. I agree that reality is deeper than religion.

Recently I read a book by Colin McGinn, The Basic Structures of Reality. If I remember correctly, McGinn shows that we don't know what energy is, nor matter, nor space, nor time. I don't know how close we are to understanding reality.

[Thats my opinion]

30. mysteries or Mystery

mysteries are matters which may eventually be solved by money, smarts and time.
The Mystery is a profound matter at the heart of reality which is not subject to any scientific evaluation. Religion is about Mystery and not mysteries.

Cold fussion is a mystery waiting to be solved.
Grace is a Mystery

[dimbear]

29. When you blow on the dice, when you cross your fingers and hope, when you wish on a star,

when you throw a coin in a wishing well, you are praying to gods so long forgotten that you probably don't believe in them.

[Thats my opinion]

32. How right you are nt

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Empty rituals.

Nothing wrong with them, however one should be aware that they are just that and are related to the ritualistic behavior of people with OCD. I bought a lottery ticket today, a futile act. When I do that I observe my own ritualistic behavior attempting to steer fate, modify luck, but while doing so I am mindful that it is empty nonsense, that the universe is indeed is indifferent to me.

[Iggo]

31. Thoughtful seekers.

[Marrah_G]

36. That would be called wishing....