Religion
Related: About this forumWhere atheists and theists may find common ground for discussion
I want to suggest that the opposite of theist is not atheist, but may be nihilist. This latter position states that there are no such realities as meaning or purpose; that the universe is totally devoid of any ethical content. “The good” on its face is an absurd category. It is all pure mindless chance. The only law is the law of the jungle—tooth and fang. Natural selection has no purpose, but only affirms the survival of the fittest in which case those not in that category are at the mercy of the strongest. Life is just “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Just as soon as one suggests that there is some meaning in life, some purpose to existence, one has abandoned nihilism. In this group we often have both theists and atheists, who from different perspectives, affirm that there are values, meanings and purposes in existence. Many of the serious atheists here regularly argue for human rights, for instance. They do not do so on any religious grounds, but legitimately find the root for this affirmation in some other source.
It has also been clear here that the solid universal ethics they espouse are more in harmony with some liberal theists, while both theists and atheists find absurd the narrow sectarian ethics of both religious fundamentalists on one hand, and nihilists on the other. So in many important ways both theists and atheists may share certain goals, and are closer to each other than separated by categories of belief or non-belief. I affirm the validity of many non-believers who post here and who hold with integrity and without prejudice notions of the meaning and purpose surrounding existence.
If we can agree just to that, I suggest we move down the road to a discussion as to what each of us holds to be the reasons for believing that there is some basic meaning to life.
I further suggest that instead of responding too quickly to one another, we allow the various perspectives to be articulated so that they may be heard and not immediately become matters for debate. Given a few days of stating and listening, it may then be time to examine, criticism and explore the various statements. I know that this is contrary to what usually happens here. But I suggest it may be a more thoughtful way to proceed on this one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...So, thoughts on basketball? Talk about fighting Nihilism.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)and I look forward to the day when discussing one's spiritual life is seen as tacky as discussing one's sexual kink or screwball politics in front of relative strangers. It's the kind of thing that ought to stay in the family and among a very few trusted friends.
In the meantime, it would be helpful if theists stopped trying to define us in terms of belief--we have none and that's what rankles most of them. On our part, we'll stop pointing out inconsistencies in a belief system that is supposed to be irrational, else it wouldn't require belief.
I would greatly prefer to concentrate on policy rather than such minutiae. It would be refreshing to see us all agree on things like living wages, a reduced military budget, and the fact that any theocracy would be unbearable for theists and non theists alike, since theists would be forced into an orthodoxy they find uncomfortable and atheists would simply be rounded up and executed.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)And that means for you there is no use of a group or forum about religion. My guess is you shouldn't bother any more with it and concentrate on forums/ groups which are limited to policy---where by the way I spend most of my life beyond DU, basically writing a weekly newspaper political column and blog.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I don't think you get to tell people to leave.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)You don't get to define other people and you don't get to ram your garbage down unwilling throats.
However, don't feel too bad, nobody made me Big Boss, either.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)it is curious that you are involved in a forum to discuss it. Nobody has been asked to leave. I just raised a question about why continue to discuss a subject you find so useless.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Warpy
(111,254 posts)Sorry about that.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)It's coming. We both know it. The old "what about love? Do you believe your spouse loves you?" Bullshit is coming.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)as far as I can tell, instead we create meaning and purpose in our own lives. This is just simple observation of our behavior as conscious beings, as far as other animals are concerned, survival of the fittest(which isn't what you imply, but in the scientific sense) seems to rule the day.
To claim there IS a meaning or purpose to life outside of what we, as humans, create, is to insert another conscious being into the universe that we have no evidence for.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)My variation would be that humans discover, for a variety of reasons, meaning and purpose. Why is peace better than war, compassion better than selfishness etc? I find value in my life that I did not create, The philosophic discipline, which includes ethics, suggests that while your perspective is clearly valid, it may be far too simplistic. Left to our own, without some ethical norms, we tend to be a savage lot. if there is nothing called the good, noble, beautiful etc and life has no ultimate meaning and there is no purpose in the universe, 98 % of people who have lived have just gotten it wrong. The majority may not be right, but cannot justtbe written off that quickly.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Consider that yes, you DID create that value. You have attributed it to some other entity (your god) but it was your creation to begin with.
You do realize that you and the "98% of people who have lived" (nice slam, by the way, reminding atheists what a tiny insignificant minority we are) have "discovered" wildly different meaning and purpose, right? And that you have found absolutely no way to prove to each other who "discovered" the correct one?
Humans creating their own meaning and purpose explains the wide variety of those ideas we see. Your theory does not.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)if the war saves more lives than the peace, for example, stopping a genocide, then war is better, or if it is to fight against oppression, then war is just. As far as compassion being better than selfishness, generally its already in our nature, being a social species, compassion is a huge part of the whole "survival of the fittest" part of our nature, without it, we would have been extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Which brings me to this: Left to our own, without some ethical norms, we tend to be a savage lot.
That statement is complete and utter bullshit, left to our own devices we usually end up creating ethical norms that work for our new society. Am I saying everyone is selfless and ethical, no, but by and large people will try to work with each other, we aren't all libertarians, after all.
if there is nothing called the good, noble, beautiful etc and life has no ultimate meaning and there is no purpose in the universe, 98 % of people who have lived have just gotten it wrong.
Ever heard of one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter? That's just an example of the subjective nature of good and nobility. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, another subjective experience that all humans practice, but also vary as to what they call beautiful, hence why there is no objective standard for any of these.
The universe has no purpose, it just is. Also, the opinions of any majority can be dismissed when there is no evidence for that opinion.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Without them we are left with the jungle. Give me a couple of examples of cultures that do not have at their base a set of values which they believe are substantial. (of substance--real)
As a contrary example I'll start with: We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Objective purpose, ethics and other fantasies. Besides that, you seem to fail at reading comprehension, along with not understanding human behavior.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that nihilism "states that there are no such realities as meaning or purpose; that the universe is totally devoid of any ethical content."
And in paragraph three you say "both theists and atheists find absurd the narrow sectarian ethics of both religious fundamentalists on one hand, and nihilists on the other."
You can't even get your story straight whether "nihilists" have ethics or not, Charles. And that, supposedly, is right at the core of what you're posting. I mean, seriously, do you just make this stuff up as you go? When you're contradicting yourself right from the start, why is this even worth discussing in any depth?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Explain WHY a society lacking ethics based on religion (one that didn't actively suppress religion or religious believers, just one that lacked those ethics) would be one in which "none of us" would want to live.
Or retract and apologize for that remark.
Quite simple. Ball's in your court.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)just leaves you, as ever, alone and slightly ridiculous.
I can't be the only one who's tired of your condescending/patronising attitude towards us and, indeed, to just about everyone who isn't you.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)Some 7 billion people competing for dwindling resources, the by-products of technology poisoning our environment, and a war-like species in possession of weapons with catastrophically destructive power, we need to develop an ethic that will assure that we don't wipe ourselves out within the next 500 years.
I don't believe we can hope to develop anything that will be effective beyond that timeframe.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That what truly matters is the afterlife, where a god will take care of everything?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)The two storied universe on which much religion was based, became obsolete when Copernicus replaced the Aristotelean notion as to how the universe is structured. The post Copernican notion of God is that "he" is not up there somewhere, but the energy which is in everything (panentheism). The earth is therefore sacred. The human (religious) task is its preservation. What you describe as an environmental ethic has become the essential theological task.---which we share in concert with all sorts of scientists and non-religious folks.
I refer you to Doing Environmental Ethics, by Robert (second edition) Westview Press 2013. This exactly where theological ethic is these days.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that modern Christianity is panentheistic? Go convince the RCC and other Christian sects of that first and then come here and let us know how that went.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Yes, once again he claims to be the spokesperson for the only "true" religion.
Everyone else, including the vast majority of Christians on the planet, is evidently wrong. But Charles for sure has gotten it right.
And he wonders why no one can take him seriously.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Modern theological scholarship is just now coming to terms with the Copernican revolution.
One day an Old Testament Professor brought to his class the documentary theory of the Pentateuch (now universally accepted except by fundamentalists.) "Professor," a student exclaimed, "it will take a hundred years for people to accept that."
'Well" said the professor, "that means we had better get started this morning."
We would not tolerate static evaluations from science or anything else. Theology is constantly in motion. What I suggest is now deeply ingrained in most modern seminaries.
There are two groups that protest what is happening.
1-fundamentalists
2-those who despise religion and don't want the old to disappear, since it is fair game.
Next week I will be attending a meeting of what was formerly called "The Jesus Seminar," now the Westar Institute, where several hundred of us will deal with these issues.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I call bullshit. No Catholic seminary is "deeply ingrained" in panentheism. Most of Christianity is not preaching panentheism. How about you give us links to this great number of Christian seminaries that are panentheistic.
I also call bullshit on your claim that because I don't agree with you I am either a fundamentalist or I despise religion.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)most of the seminaries around the world are open and accepting towards gays and lesbians, too. I think he needs to get out more.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"Constantly in motion" does not mean that it's getting any closer to the truth or to genuine understanding of the things it purports to study. Science is, and demonstrably so, so your attempt to paint an equivalence between the two is also bullshit.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No one here is "protesting" your "new theology," we're questioning just how many people buy into it.
I don't think that's very respectful or civil of you to simply declare that anyone who questions you is either a fundamentalist or "despises religion." So much for encouraging dialog and discussion!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Insulting and patronising at the same time! The Wise One has spoken.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)the processes of history always move beyond them. I doubt if you want to believe that whatever the tradition in any endeavor in which you are involved, is absolute, and that anything that causes it to be replaced by fresh thinking is therefore "bullshit..": I doubt you are that kind of a conservative in whatever discipline you represent.
Religion is a dynamic discipline, not a static one. That is what Jesus was talking about when he remarked, you have heard of old..., but I say to you......
There is nothing as exciting as hearing a new thought the populous is not yet ready to believe.
Why do you all fight so hard to keep from accepting that in religion there are new waves of thought. Is it that you just can't accept as real for others anything which violates your criticism of what many of us also believe is dated and inauthentic in the modern world.?
There is evidence all over the theological world that an emerging church is coming on as the old institutions die off. You may criticize it, but at least you ought to know and admit that it exists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Most atheists don't really give a flying fig what "new waves of thought" you've come up with. To us, it's just claims of new patterns you've discovered in the emperor's new clothes. More of the same old unsubstantiated nonsense.
Convince your Christian brethren. Show us this is truly new theology, that you're all in agreement concerning claims of the nature of your god instead of fragmented in a thousand sects, cults, and synods. That would be impressive. Not your isolated (and rejected by the majority of Christians) claims of this bold new theology. Sure it exists, but as long as you are such a tiny minority and most Christians reject you, why should we care?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I am fighting your claims that this new thought you are presenting is in the majority in Christianity. It is not. Most Christians are NOT panentheists, but you claim that they are.
You claim that the majority of Christian seminaries are teaching panentheism. They are not. THAT is what I am calling bullshit on. I would like nothing better than for Christianity to look like you think it looks. But, alas, I'm a realist and will not just stick my head in the sand and say it is just like you say it is.
eomer
(3,845 posts)That atheists can be nihilists apparently is a given. But that theists can be nihilists should be just as obvious, you're just conditioned not to think of that possibility. Deists in particular may take the view that there is a god that created the universe but doesn't really care what humans do. So deists like that would be both theists and nihilists.
You've already made the point that atheists can propose various sources of morality, in which case they would not be nihilists. Other atheists may say there is no intrinsic source of morality.
So theists can be either nihilists or not nihilists and atheists can be either nihilists or not nihilists. Theism and nihilism are orthogonal, not opposite.
But from a more practical point of view there don't seem to be many theists these days who are nihilists. And the atheists I know are also not nihilists but rather secular humanists who do believe they can find a source of morality that isn't god.
So to me the question is more whether two camps of not-nihilists, the theist camp and the atheist secular humanist camp, can find common ground to discuss morality. And I think the answer would be mostly no for theists who take an ancient book as the source of their morality unless they take that book with a very large grain of salt, which is to say unless they say the book is their source but are mistaken in saying so and are really getting their morality from somewhere else. In that case they are not really different than secular humanists. In other words, maybe liberal theists and secular humanist atheists are not really different with regard to their source of morality and therefore can find some common ground for a fruitful discussion of morality. One way to find out would be to just try and see what happens. In other words, what morals do you propose and why?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Responding to your post--
There are nihilist/atheists who have responded. They are clear about the non-existence of any meaning and purpose to life. I take their statements at face value.
Now, can non-nihilistic atheists who are really secular humanists, and liberal theists find common cause? You say "no" because theists are committed to a notion of Biblical revelation as the source of morality. I wish you might be aware of what is happening in Biblical studies, and has been going on for a long time. You can only mean some evangelicals and fundamentalists--and not even all of them. I'm in the middle of what is happening in seminaries and among Biblical scholars, and I can tell you, it is not a grain of salt, but an enlightened post-Copernican methodology that is vital to what is happening.
The fact is that these two groups are making common cause all across the world--but for reasons which are obvious, DU is the last place where this might happen. There are just those heavy voices who don' want it to happen.
And that is sad.
With your permission I will send you by DU mail an article I have recently published on the subject.
eomer
(3,845 posts)By the way, do please send a DU message with your article, I would be interested in it.
From what I've seen in this group, a subthread on a topic like that would not be disrupted (although if such a subthread had any eye jabs or sharp elbows then a response would be likely but justified).
Here is an article by a secular humanist on ethics that seems appealing to me:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_23_1_1.htm
How does that compare with your views on ethics?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)In ethics there seems to be two rather related approaches.
First, there is the "deontological" approach, which is what Kurtz often takes. This view springs from Kant's "Categorical imperative" --do what you would want universally done. There is something written in the nature of things that defines what is right. In the most conservative aspect of this system, it means obedience to law, rules, authority. We simply know what is right because that is the way nature is constructed.
The second basic approach is "consequentialism." What is right produces right outcomes. Utilitarianism and the pragmatists focus on results. It is right because it makes society safer, for instance.
A healthy society, growing out of a healthy point of view, encompasses both. Religion often runs off the tracks when it only focuses on the first. But the second can be equally dangerous. Wars are often justified by a hoped for peaceful outcome--or just victory-- as the goal. Dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was justified because it saved an invasion.
Many of our most difficult moral problems lie in the balance between these two things. When religion has been helpful it has observed this balance. Kurtz reliance on the transcendentalists makes his case, and it is well worth our attention. This discussion is a fruitful place where I believe secular humanists and liberal religion may provide a helpful conversation.
Regarding the paper I promised by DU letter. I am giving a version of it before a theological conference this afternoon, and another version tomorrow morning at another body. And then I'm off next week for the
Spring meeting of what most people recognize as the Jesus Seminar (The Westar Institute). When I return I hope to have a version suitable go send out, and will get it to you..
And thanks for the reminder about sharp edges.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Multiple people have pointed out to you on dozens of threads that it's not that we don't WANT to see your progressive religion succeed. It's that you are pushing it as if it were the majority view, and it is most certainly not. We feel that if you don't address the reality of the situation, NONE OF US (like that phrase?) will succeed.
It would also help your credibility if you could put aside your notion that religious-based ethics are superior to secular ones. You want to work together? Great. Start by changing your approach.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't think I read anyone here who said that there is no meaning and purpose to life. They have said that that mean is not intrinsic to being alive. That meaning doesn't exist outside of ourselves. We create the meaning and purpose.
But, hey, continue to think that those that disagree with you here are just anti-religion nihilists. Probably makes life easier for you.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)When a persons religion or faith/beliefs are used as the reason for pursuing the issue, it is no longer the common ground of because its the right thing to do.
Common ground lies where social justice and equality for all is pursued because its the right thing to do, not because a religion dictates it. That may be YOUR reason for being there, which is fine, but not everyone shares your reason for motivation. Proclaiming that you are pushing for social justice and equality because your faith or beliefs compel you to tells me that you are not there because its the right thing to do, but for some other reason. And unless we are both there because its the right thing to do, there is no common ground.
The common ground is not the issue we share, but the reason we share it.
Evoman
(8,040 posts)For some reason, condescending to people and defining them in way they don't like to be defined pushes people away.
Just saying.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)or it is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I choose to belief that life makes sense, and has meaning. I may be wrong, but all my experience tells me that there are values, worth, beauty, meaning and purpose to existence. If there is not, why does anything matter? "Does there need to be..."? is an unanswerable question.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)as T.E. Lawernce;
"Nothing is written, lest we write it."
We can be the authors of our own meaning. It does not need to be imposed by the Universe.
And the Universe being absent of meaning does not mean our lives cannot have meaning.
You seem to be stuck in a metaphysical cul-di-sac.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)If you have read the three part bit I posted a couple of weeks back, you would sense what I hold about it. The two tiered universe has disappeared with Copernicus.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)A clear and vast majority of Christians still believe in the two-tiered universe. I don't think any of us will be able to work for effective change if we can't honestly acknowledge reality first. Why are you unable to do this?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Seriously. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in that you can declare that the "two tiered universe has disappeared with Copernicus."
If you are just going to spout nonsense that is not reflective of the majority of Christianity, then I don't know how we can ever have a real conversation.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)It is strange that I find here so much resistance to the idea that theology has done anywhere since Copernicus.
Let me acknowledge again that among the mass of Christians there may still be a sense that the notion of a two tiered universe is normative. Modern theology, however has moved far beyond that. And if you were acquainted both with the literature and the theological/ academic work which has gone on in these area for some time, you would know that they are not just following old superstitious patterns. Why those who claim to be fairly modern are not willing to acknowledge in theology what you celebrate in science is a curious question. The world in both has moved on, and if it takes lots of time for what is currently happening to catch on popularly, that is just the way things work.
My (our) task as theologians is to work with the rest of the religious establishment in helping old institutions and thought patterns die, and to find ways to celebrate and articulate what is new and powerful.
It is not the majority of Christianity, but the leading edge I have tired to explain. I think there are reasons you all don't want to hear it, but that is for you to figure out.
In dealing with what is happening in the religious/theological world, I don't think I'm the one in the bubble. If you want a reading lists of current thought. I would be happy to supply it. In the meantime, despite your wanting all theology to be trapped in old forms we are still still thinking and working with many others out of the box you keep insisting we stay in.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)theology is always mature. if it has matured more since copernicus then it has become even more brittle, impenetrable and irrelevant. modern mathematics suffers similar complaints, but is saved by being occasionally useful.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)but a build-in dynamic, waiting for us to discover and celebrate them.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)the claim that there is something innate in the Universe that isn't there.
Those are human constructs and not built into anything.
No matter how you phrase it, you claim the existence of something for which there is no evidence.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I want to suggest that the opposite of theist is not atheist, but may be nihilist. This latter position states that there are no such realities as meaning or purpose; that the universe is totally devoid of any ethical content. “The good” on its face is an absurd category. It is all pure mindless chance. The only law is the law of the jungle—tooth and fang. Natural selection has no purpose, but only affirms the survival of the fittest in which case those not in that category are at the mercy of the strongest. Life is just “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The universe is totally devoid of any ethical content? We are in the universe, we have ethics, the universe is not devoid of ethical content. I think you meant that nihilism holds that there are no inherent ethical conditions of the universe.
You then wander off into some sort of rendition of social Darwinism where you regurgitate oddly archaic and moderately racist blather like "law of the jungle". Here is a clue: evolutionary forces promote cooperation, altruism, and other collective behaviors, not just me eat you now.
The universe is too immense to even be indifferent to us, effectively we don't exist. When you figure that out you can finally put down your Iron Age Deity, stop worrying about what would Sparky do, and get on with the puzzle of living a good life. It is all you have. Make the best of it.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)My statement which you criticize, is NOT what I hold, but the way I have heard nihilists describe their understanding of the lack of any inherent ethic in the universe. It is what happens when civilization, which may be a veneer over the jungle, is obviated by those who deny that the world is filled with meaning, not only in human endeavor, but also in the very process of nature. Sorry I wasn't clear--but like all my posting , these are things I am trying to work through, not final concrete judgements.
