Atheism and the Evolution of Religious Faith

[Windwalker]

Thank God for Atheism. I genuinely, and paradoxically mean that. What I mean by this is that those that doubt and apply sharp and critical eyes to religious faiths actually, can aide religious faith in examining itself and engaging in a little housecleaning as well as redefining itself in the light of the truths that the skeptic rightly calls out. As is the case everyone responds differently to that sharp edge of doubt. Some hide from it, deny its validity, make cases against the claims in acts of self defense towards its own self preservation. Other's welcome it with open arms as an opportunity to learn and grow their own understanding of their religiously given assumptions. After all, religion has evolved all along from the beginning of human history, why not be part of that tradition of change and help evolve it today?

I subscribe to an Integral approach to these things and find that understanding that all points of view have and expose truths, yet none exclusively answer everything. 'True but partial', is the mantra of an Integral approach. As another saying goes, "No one is so stupid as to be wrong 100% of the time". This means atheism has many truths right. It also means religions do as well. Where those truths are and what their importance is becomes part of defining one's spiritual growth.

It is a challenge for many to let go of the attitude that because religion has many great truths, it must therefore be true and not doubted. Likewise, that atheism has many truths and evidences to support it in hard to deny ways, that it then therefore must be the truth and the path to find the answers. Why not instead embrace atheism with respect and gratitude for it's sharp and keen insights, while at the same time embracing the light and truths of religious faith? I do not see these things as mutually exclusive, but interconnected parts of the whole.

I read this in Sri Aurobindo's collection of writings in The Life Divine a few years ago that has always impressed me and speaks to this very thing,

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism has done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."

~Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 13,14
​

 

[shunyadragon]

I am a Theist, but find this argument naive, and wanting as it is begging the question as to the existence of God.

The mantra 'Thank God for Atheism,' is not useful in an argument for the existence of God.

I am an admirer of Sri Aurobindo and his writings, but I am uncertain as to your arguments concerning the existence of God if even that is your case here.

 

[YmirGF]

I think it is a marvelous quote and almost feel like he has lifted it from, "YmirGF's Helpful Tips for Expanding Awareness, Vol. 3, pg 1402,1403", though I may have to consult my legal department.

Kidding aside, I know that in my own explorations there was a period where I was right out of this world and that was followed by a reunion with all things physical. I was able to ground my unbridled experience with the veracity of the reality at my fingertips and so ushered in a holistic vision of being that has only grown since its inception. This vision still precludes any previous versions of god, but does not ignore the potential aspects of reality that perhaps have given rise to said god concepts, albeit through their highly distorted religious version of Purple Haze.

Great topic!

 

[YmirGF]

I am a Theist, but find this argument naive, and wanting as it is begging the question as to the existence of God.

The mantra 'Thank God for Atheism,' is not useful in an argument for the existence of God.

I am an admirer of Sri Aurobindo and his writings, but I am uncertain as to your arguments concerning the existence of God if even that is your case here.

An interesting perspective. For me, it's not about if a god exists because, being a strong atheist, I do not perceive reality through a "god lens", as it were. In my own case, it's not that there is an unknown reality or unknown aspects of reality, but more that those aspects of unknown reality are far removed from the primitive god concepts that are currently the rage. I remain greatly amused by those who pretend to know about god.

 

[Windwalker]

I am a Theist, but find this argument naive, and wanting as it is begging the question as to the existence of God.

The mantra 'Thank God for Atheism,' is not useful in an argument for the existence of God.

But it is useful for how we imagine God what is. And that is the point. Do we hold on to, say outdated anthropomorphic imaginings where the world is controlled by magic forces from on high, or do we evolve our ideas of the Divine itself, integrating the Knowledge of this Ground of all Being, with the sure footing of the natural world?

The same thing applies to not just the questions of what God is or means, but of the workings and nature of religion itself, it's traditions and changes, it's religious texts and their origins, and so forth. The point is, that to question and reexamine these things leads to growth. Everyone wins, I believe.

I am an admirer of Sri Aurobindo and his writings, but I am uncertain as to your arguments concerning the existence of God if even that is your case here.

I'm not making an argument to the existence of God. Only that we can, and frankly need to evolve what we imagine that to mean.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not making an argument to the existence of God. Only that we can, and frankly need to evolve what we imagine that to mean.

Agree 100%. It's not about if such an existential reality exists but how realistic our intellectual models of said existential reality are. The idea being that if the model is not accurate is it really all that helpful?

 

[Windwalker]

Agree 100%. It's not about if such an existential reality exists but how realistic our intellectual models of said existential reality are. The idea being that if the model is not accurate is it really all that helpful?

That is exactly it. The models of reality, or in this case Reality, are ultimately simply structures that we can translate what is ultimately ineffable for our minds to ponder and process. As we are growing up from early childhood, the models we used were sufficient or adequate to where we were at developmentally. But as we began growing, those structural supports need to go a little further, a little higher, a little wider and a little deeper as the building grew. If the supporting structure was too weak or small, construction of the building would come to a halt at a certain height. You understand of course where this is going.

Each of these higher, more advanced structures allow further development to proceed. They don't need to be "perfect", or even necessarily 100% accurate in order to do the job, but they do need to be able to be stable. Religion is a support structure for spiritual growth. It's that simple. It needs to be allowed to adapt and grow it's structures in order to integrate the whole person, which includes our rational minds. Images of a mythic level deity as literal fact, is not an adequate support for them in understanding their own experiences of this Transcendent Reality. Trust me, I know.

 

[icehorse]

Religion is a support structure for spiritual growth.

That seems like a healthy definition, although I do chafe a bit. Notice that by this definition there is no need to include anything supernatural. IMO, the inclusion of a supernatural component is a vestige of past ignorance, and it doesn't really add anything good anymore.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@Windwalker Interesting OP. People must nevertheless be in a covenant of peace whether in religion or not. I think atheism is a freedom that should not come without religious responsibility and some kind of training that makes each person aware that their actions are observed. I think those with religious training are a degree better, so one problem with atheism is it is sometimes gets used to replace religion. It cannot do that. It cannot replace anything except mental laziness. It can make the person face questions that cult people can avoid, but this is not a replacement for religious training. Moral character does not appear without moral training, so when you remove what you have and replace it only with atheism you get problems. These problems I cannot consider a gift from God. My personal experiences have lead me to this conclusion.

I am not worried about hurting God's feelings. I'm a man, and I have practical concerns.

An atheist has the freedom to choose what is right and wrong. That is the gift. A cult member does not. So the atheist can judge. They can demonstrate what is right. The cult member can only do what they are told. The atheist, however, is by default untrained. In our society with its religious underpinnings, what can replace the moral training a religious person receives?

Some people I've known who've grown up irreligious have also been reared badly. I've had to watch them and watch my back around them, because some are literally dangerous. Have I met dangerous religious people? Yes I have met those, but even the most dangerous have felt God's tether. These untrained atheists make me wonder would they not have been better citizens had they been bound to a cult? (not that I like cults) I contrast that with atheists I've known who've grown up religious and then have become atheists later. They seem to have self control and an appreciation for their freedom and a tension about whether their actions are truly unobserved. They give a dam. The religious atheists in my experience have superior training and superior results compared to the non-religious ones. Which form of atheism then would I consider to be a gift of God? Only a religious one, but how is that to be had? How do you give the next generation the moral freedom of an atheist but the internal moral training of a religion?

 

[sayak83]

Thank God for Atheism. I genuinely, and paradoxically mean that. What I mean by this is that those that doubt and apply sharp and critical eyes to religious faiths actually, can aide religious faith in examining itself and engaging in a little housecleaning as well as redefining itself in the light of the truths that the skeptic rightly calls out. As is the case everyone responds differently to that sharp edge of doubt. Some hide from it, deny its validity, make cases against the claims in acts of self defense towards its own self preservation. Other's welcome it with open arms as an opportunity to learn and grow their own understanding of their religiously given assumptions. After all, religion has evolved all along from the beginning of human history, why not be part of that tradition of change and help evolve it today?

I subscribe to an Integral approach to these things and find that understanding that all points of view have and expose truths, yet none exclusively answer everything. 'True but partial', is the mantra of an Integral approach. As another saying goes, "No one is so stupid as to be wrong 100% of the time". This means atheism has many truths right. It also means religions do as well. Where those truths are and what their importance is becomes part of defining one's spiritual growth.

It is a challenge for many to let go of the attitude that because religion has many great truths, it must therefore be true and not doubted. Likewise, that atheism has many truths and evidences to support it in hard to deny ways, that it then therefore must be the truth and the path to find the answers. Why not instead embrace atheism with respect and gratitude for it's sharp and keen insights, while at the same time embracing the light and truths of religious faith? I do not see these things as mutually exclusive, but interconnected parts of the whole.

I read this in Sri Aurobindo's collection of writings in The Life Divine a few years ago that has always impressed me and speaks to this very thing,

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism has done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."

~Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 13,14
​

I admire Aurobindo a lot, but I will criticise him a bit. He, like the rest of the neo-Vedantins consider material knowledge to be "below" spiritual knowledge. However upanisads (especially the early ones) show that the material world, when examined properly also reveals the nature of true reality as surely as insight of self through yoga does... which spurs the rationalistic growth of logic, metaphysics and epistemology as well as linguistic philosophy in nyaya, vaisesika and mimansa branches of Hindu thought. Selfless and focused investigation into the nature of things through philosophy, science or Mathematics is as efficacious as meditation, loving devotion to God or selfless humanitarian action. While some are better at some actions than others, truth is impartially distributed in all things and equally available in all modes of right practice and enquiry.

 

[Windwalker]

That seems like a healthy definition, although I do chafe a bit. Notice that by this definition there is no need to include anything supernatural. IMO, the inclusion of a supernatural component is a vestige of past ignorance, and it doesn't really add anything good anymore.

Just sharing some thoughts here about the supernatural in this context. If you think about what the supernatural represents in our imaginations, it points to the Transcendent. The way we historically have dressed that up is with prescientific, or prerational languages. Mythic imagery takes the Transcendent and tries to give it some form in the natural world to look at it, or to take the mind "above" in its reach for Reality at a deep existential level. "When you look at the rainbow in the sky, think of God's covenant with the earth", and that sort of thing. The goal is to make you mindful of higher Reality than just the goings on down here on earth.

So once science comes along and points out why there actually are rainbows and it's perfectly natural phenomena, those that are unable to decouple the meaning of the symbol from the symbol itself, become anti-science. This of course doesn't work if you embrace science and reason and rationality as the main mode of thought. So to the rainbow-believers, for example, the supernatural explanation is their linkage to the Divine itself, or that Transcendent Reality. If you remove the supernatural, you deny God to them.

But in growth, those structures need to grow in what they can hold, such as scientific realities to the rational mind. Yet, the Transcendent still exists in a spiritual context, an 'intuition' you could call it existing within us. You have "spiritual atheists" for example that acknowledge that 'sense', yet cannot be talked about to themselves, or others as magical or supernatural in the sense of fitting mythic descriptions or symbols. It's "something else", yet scientific language doesn't capture or fit that reality.

This is where it starts to get interesting. The supernatural is still there, in the sense of pointing to that 'something more' 'larger than our mundane reality', yet it's not magical, in the sense that it defies the nature or violates it. It in fact is quite, very immanent within the natural. The real stumbling block is not "explanations" for it, but rather one's ability to transcend the symbols into the meaning of the symbol within what our rational minds can hold comfortable. It's not that we "explain" it, but that we can embrace it without violating reason. It's like love in this way. Love transcends the object of love, and "God" transcends this world, yet is known in all objects. In other words, God is not an object, but the Subject of all our Being.

We'll see if this makes any sense typing it out.

 

[sayak83]

@Windwalker Interesting OP. People must nevertheless be in a covenant of peace whether in religion or not. I think atheism is a freedom that should not come without religious responsibility and some kind of training that makes each person aware that their actions are observed. I think those with religious training are a degree better, so one problem with atheism is it is sometimes gets used to replace religion. It cannot do that. It cannot replace anything except mental laziness. It can make the person face questions that cult people can avoid, but this is not a replacement for religious training. Moral character does not appear without moral training, so when you remove what you have and replace it only with atheism you get problems. These problems I cannot consider a gift from God. My personal experiences have lead me to this conclusion.

I am not worried about hurting God's feelings. I'm a man, and I have practical concerns.

An atheist has the freedom to choose what is right and wrong. That is the gift. A cult member does not. So the atheist can judge. They can demonstrate what is right. The cult member can only do what they are told. The atheist, however, is by default untrained. In our society with its religious underpinnings, what can replace the moral training a religious person receives?

Some people I've known who've grown up irreligious have also been reared badly. I've had to watch them and watch my back around them, because some are literally dangerous. Have I met dangerous religious people? Yes I have met those, but even the most dangerous have felt God's tether. These untrained atheists make me wonder would they not have been better citizens had they been bound to a cult? (not that I like cults) I contrast that with atheists I've known who've grown up religious and then have become atheists later. They seem to have self control and an appreciation for their freedom and a tension about whether their actions are truly unobserved. They give a dam. The religious atheists in my experience have superior training and superior results compared to the non-religious ones. Which form of atheism then would I consider to be a gift of God? Only a religious one, but how is that to be had? How do you give the next generation the moral freedom of an atheist but the internal moral training of a religion?

Is something wrong with humanism.
If humanist households replace weekly bible study with weekly readings of Socrates, Epicurus, Democritus, Seneca or Aurelius along with Dewey, James and Rawls... would that somehow fall short? Perhaps the problem is that the kind of simplified and child friendly teachings and stories extracted from such great works is lacking. But I have complete confidence that this could be done if a humanist culture establishes itself. Making the Bible child friendly was certainly a much harder task.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If humanist households replace weekly bible study with weekly readings of Socrates, Epicurus, Democritus, Seneca or Aurelius along with Dewey, James and Rawls... would that somehow fall short?

I do not think God would have a problem with it, but do you think humanist households are going to do that? Why?

Perhaps the problem is that the kind of simplified and child friendly teachings and stories extracted from such great works is lacking.

I am not familiar with these authors, so maybe you are correct. I've only recently heard of Aurelius. Dewey is the guy who invented the decimal system used in local libraries and who pushed for public education.

But I have complete confidence that this could be done if a humanist culture establishes itself. Making the Bible child friendly was certainly a much harder task.

You mean, like, on the moon? (cynically) Ok, so lets say you can establish a self-regenerating humanist culture. Why hasn't it been done before? What became of Aurelius culture?

Is something wrong with humanism.

I think people are innately violent, and we have to dedicate ourselves to taking damage sometimes without retribution. That is not humanism. That is forgiveness. When we are wronged its not a slap on the wrist but full deadly vengeance that we desire. When we're sweet things are good, but if we ever become bitter then our innate human side can joy in cruelty. If you have never been bitter then just take my word for it. When we are wronged that is the time when we have to choose what kind of humanism we will have, and that choice comes at a personal cost. Maybe studying those authors is enough? I am not familiar with them.

 

[YmirGF]

Is something wrong with humanism.
If humanist households replace weekly bible study with weekly readings of Socrates, Epicurus, Democritus, Seneca or Aurelius along with Dewey, James and Rawls... would that somehow fall short? Perhaps the problem is that the kind of simplified and child friendly teachings and stories extracted from such great works is lacking. But I have complete confidence that this could be done if a humanist culture establishes itself. Making the Bible child friendly was certainly a much harder task.

I agree and have often said over the years that it is up to us to come up with better answers to more important questions. Relying on the verbiage of old is all fine and dandy but suffers from metaphorical ineptitude and often goes against the grain of modern social understanding.

 

[sayak83]

I do not think God would have a problem with it, but do you think humanist households are going to do that? Why?

Because they are part of what made Renaissance and enlightenment possible, they are part of the Western Canon and integral to humanist philosophy of the West.

I am not familiar with these authors, so maybe you are correct. I've only recently heard of Aurelius. Dewey is the guy who invented the decimal system used in local libraries and who pushed for public education.

I find it terribly sad but unsurprising that you have not read them. You were raised in a Christian dominated culture where children and adults are deliberately kept in the dark about their greatest cultural literature when they come from non Christian sources. Of course there has been a great cottage industry starting from middle ages where the high class bishops (now the seminary trained theologians and apologists) do read all of these non Christian works, create an exegesis of the Bible in a way to reflect these essential ideas from non Christian sources, and then pretend that those came from the Bible in the first place! It's called plagiarism and it has been going on for oh so long.

You mean, like, on the moon? (cynically) Ok, so lets say you can establish a self-regenerating humanist culture. Why hasn't it been done before? What became of Aurelius culture?

The Stoics and the epicurean were ruthlessly oppressed and killed and converted to Christianity on the pain of death as later Roman emperors thought a pliable blind monotheistic faith with them as God's chosen representative would be more conducive to holding onto power rather than free thought that characterized the school of philosophy. The scale of violence against the Non Christians by the Roman Christians, far exceeds the early sporadic oppression of Christians. Did you not know?


The anti-paganism policies of Theodosius I began in 381, following the first few years of his reign over the Eastern Empire. Theodosius reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice and haruspicy on pain of death. He pioneered the criminalisation of Magistrates who did not enforce the anti-pagan laws. He broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

Between 389-391 he issued the infamous "Theodosian decrees," which established a practical ban on paganism;[74] visits to the temples were forbidden,[73][75] remaining pagan holidays were abolished, the Sacred fire of Vesta in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, auspices and witchcraft punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House when asked to do so by pagan Senators.

In 392 he became emperor of the whole empire. From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration,[76][77] he authorized or participated in the killing of pagan priests, destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of reverence throughout the empire[1][78][79][80][81] and participated in actions by Christians against major Pagan sites.[82] His later decrees were seen as effectively a declaration of war on traditional religious practices[12][13] and for anyone caught, was a death sentence, as well as an automatic confiscation of property, even for private familial rites within the home. However, it appears that many covertly still chose to do so in defiance of the edicts, despite the risk to their heirs.[83] He likely also suppressed the Ancient Olympic Games; the last record of the Olympics being celebrated in ancient Rome is from 393.[84]

I think people are innately violent, and we have to dedicate ourselves to taking damage sometimes without retribution. That is not humanism. That is forgiveness. When we are wronged its not a slap on the wrist but full deadly vengeance that we desire. When we're sweet things are good, but if we ever become bitter then our innate human side can joy in cruelty. If you have never been bitter then just take my word for it. When we are wronged that is the time when we have to choose what kind of humanism we will have, and that choice comes at a personal cost. Maybe studying those authors is enough? I am not familiar with them.

People are neither innately violent nor innately forgiving. Proper ethical training coupled with good socioeconomic structures foster the conditions under which people can fully express their potential to be virtuous and caring rather than vindictive and selfish. Confucius, Buddhists, Hindus, Daoist, Greek philosophers and humanists have all converged on this conclusion about human nature, despite other differences. It's inconvenient for Christianity to admit this widespread consensus as it goes against their central tenet that our condition is hopeless and require divine intervention. Is it not strange that Middle Ages suddenly list 90% of all classical writings from Rome and Greece and nothing from Egypt and Mesopotamia ? India and China had gone through far greater political fragmentation and upheavals and yet we have lost less than 30%. The ploy to keep people ignorant by deliberate non preservation and distortion is blatant.

 

[viole]

Thank God for Atheism. I genuinely, and paradoxically mean that. What I mean by this is that those that doubt and apply sharp and critical eyes to religious faiths actually, can aide religious faith in examining itself and engaging in a little housecleaning as well as redefining itself in the light of the truths that the skeptic rightly calls out. As is the case everyone responds differently to that sharp edge of doubt. Some hide from it, deny its validity, make cases against the claims in acts of self defense towards its own self preservation. Other's welcome it with open arms as an opportunity to learn and grow their own understanding of their religiously given assumptions. After all, religion has evolved all along from the beginning of human history, why not be part of that tradition of change and help evolve it today?

I subscribe to an Integral approach to these things and find that understanding that all points of view have and expose truths, yet none exclusively answer everything. 'True but partial', is the mantra of an Integral approach. As another saying goes, "No one is so stupid as to be wrong 100% of the time". This means atheism has many truths right. It also means religions do as well. Where those truths are and what their importance is becomes part of defining one's spiritual growth.

It is a challenge for many to let go of the attitude that because religion has many great truths, it must therefore be true and not doubted. Likewise, that atheism has many truths and evidences to support it in hard to deny ways, that it then therefore must be the truth and the path to find the answers. Why not instead embrace atheism with respect and gratitude for it's sharp and keen insights, while at the same time embracing the light and truths of religious faith? I do not see these things as mutually exclusive, but interconnected parts of the whole.

I read this in Sri Aurobindo's collection of writings in The Life Divine a few years ago that has always impressed me and speaks to this very thing,

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism has done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."

~Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 13,14
​

The problem is that if you clean your house to the point where the atheist has nothing more to object, you have no house anymore.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Iti oj]

@Windwalker Interesting OP. People must nevertheless be in a covenant of peace whether in religion or not. I think atheism is a freedom that should not come without religious responsibility and some kind of training that makes each person aware that their actions are observed. I think those with religious training are a degree better, so one problem with atheism is it is sometimes gets used to replace religion. It cannot do that. It cannot replace anything except mental laziness. It can make the person face questions that cult people can avoid, but this is not a replacement for religious training. Moral character does not appear without moral training, so when you remove what you have and replace it only with atheism you get problems. These problems I cannot consider a gift from God. My personal experiences have lead me to this conclusion.

I am not worried about hurting God's feelings. I'm a man, and I have practical concerns.

An atheist has the freedom to choose what is right and wrong. That is the gift. A cult member does not. So the atheist can judge. They can demonstrate what is right. The cult member can only do what they are told. The atheist, however, is by default untrained. In our society with its religious underpinnings, what can replace the moral training a religious person receives?

Some people I've known who've grown up irreligious have also been reared badly. I've had to watch them and watch my back around them, because some are literally dangerous. Have I met dangerous religious people? Yes I have met those, but even the most dangerous have felt God's tether. These untrained atheists make me wonder would they not have been better citizens had they been bound to a cult? (not that I like cults) I contrast that with atheists I've known who've grown up religious and then have become atheists later. They seem to have self control and an appreciation for their freedom and a tension about whether their actions are truly unobserved. They give a dam. The religious atheists in my experience have superior training and superior results compared to the non-religious ones. Which form of atheism then would I consider to be a gift of God? Only a religious one, but how is that to be had? How do you give the next generation the moral freedom of an atheist but the internal moral training of a religion?

This is demonstrable a false, negative, propaganda and demeaning.

 

[George-ananda]

I think Ken Wilbur would give a 'Like' to the OP.

I think he would put it this way (and these are not his exact words):

'Narrow science' trumps 'narrow religion'. 'Broad religion/science' trumps both of those.

But anyway, I see the progress of western humanity's leading edge thinking going from Christianity and the Bible, followed by the Renaissance and the 'age of enlightenment' producing a period where science led the cutting edge of thinking, now in this New Age dawning a more broad religious and post-materialist scientific thinking is the cutting edge of understanding. The current cutting edge is interested in consciousness and the nature of reality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I find it terribly sad but unsurprising that you have not read them. You were raised in a Christian dominated culture where children and adults are deliberately kept in the dark about their greatest cultural literature when they come from non Christian sources. Of course there has been a great cottage industry starting from middle ages where the high class bishops (now the seminary trained theologians and apologists) do read all of these non Christian works, create an exegesis of the Bible in a way to reflect these essential ideas from non Christian sources, and then pretend that those came from the Bible in the first place! It's called plagiarism and it has been going on for oh so long.

I do not deny that, and I have felt quite in the dark many times because of it.

The Stoics and the epicurean were ruthlessly oppressed and killed and converted to Christianity on the pain of death as later Roman emperors thought a pliable blind monotheistic faith with them as God's chosen representative would be more conducive to holding onto power rather than free thought that characterized the school of philosophy. The scale of violence against the Non Christians by the Roman Christians, far exceeds the early sporadic oppression of Christians. Did you not know?

Yes I learned of it.

People are neither innately violent nor innately forgiving. Proper ethical training coupled with good socioeconomic structures foster the conditions under which people can fully express their potential to be virtuous and caring rather than vindictive and selfish. Confucius, Buddhists, Hindus, Daoist, Greek philosophers and humanists have all converged on this conclusion about human nature, despite other differences. It's inconvenient for Christianity to admit this widespread consensus as it goes against their central tenet that our condition is hopeless and require divine intervention. Is it not strange that Middle Ages suddenly list 90% of all classical writings from Rome and Greece and nothing from Egypt and Mesopotamia ? India and China had gone through far greater political fragmentation and upheavals and yet we have lost less than 30%. The ploy to keep people ignorant by deliberate non preservation and distortion is blatant.

It has been blantant, yes.

Because they are part of what made Renaissance and enlightenment possible, they are part of the Western Canon and integral to humanist philosophy of the West.

Well that is good to know.

 

[icehorse]

An atheist has the freedom to choose what is right and wrong. That is the gift. A cult member does not. So the atheist can judge. They can demonstrate what is right. The cult member can only do what they are told. The atheist, however, is by default untrained. In our society with its religious underpinnings, what can replace the moral training a religious person receives?

Wow! To me this can be true only if a religion has a bullet-proof scripture, and I know of no such examples?!

Instead, I'd argue that healthy individuals have good morality innately.