Bible Study - Fun for all

[Descalzo]

Originally Posted by Stanley Milgram

Not being facetious, I really see it the other way around. Seriously. What aspect of atheism do YOU see that is appealing in regards to wishful thinking? What I find REALLY annoying is the persistent assumption that atheists are looking for opportunities to "sin". But really aren't you saying more about yourself and your own weakness? Do you think that without religion you'd be free to do whatever you want?

As an atheist, I prefer moral/ethical order to chaos. Moral order without religion is harder to articulate. But have a sincere conversation with an atheist and you will find that the concepts of "morality" or "ethics" are strong whether or not you have a god. I believe that humans have inherent in them a strong sense of morality and ethics. In fact, I believe that letting go of religion raises our personal responsibility to a much higher level. Because we have to answer to ourselves, honestly, without the fringe benefits of religion (confession, heaven,...)

Well, you gave me one reason why atheism would appeal to wishful thinking: the desire to sin. Of course if you believe in God (or especially in an organized religion like Catholicism or the LDS) you don't get to pick and choose what sins are, but as an atheist you would have total control over what is to be considered right and wrong. It's horribly easy to justify away whatever anchorless sense of right and wrong we have. That must be appealing.

You inadvertently pointed out another benefit of atheism: feeling smarter than those moranic believers!

Anyway, now that we've pointed out that both believers both in God and in no God have their thoughts tainted, hopefully we can stop sawing that branch off. We're both sitting on it.

[Steve Grondin]

Originally Posted by Lucy

... Well, I only learned as an adult that Christians think God is male, as in "not female". Judaism teaches that we are all reflections of G-d, and He is more male than any man, but also more female than any woman.

I think I have tried to explain this to you before, but that is FALSE that all Christians believe this. Most Christians are trinitarian, excluding some groups like Unitarians, LDS, JW, which are the most prominent (to my knowledge, at least). Trinitarians hold that God has three persons. Part of your confusion may stem from how we refer to the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the fact that when the Son was incarnated (scandal to the Jews) he came as a man, Jesus, as well as language issues with the personal pronoun for third person singular being the same for masculine and neuter.

Here are two sections from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that are directly contrary to your false assertion.

Originally Posted by CCC

238 Many religions invoke God as "Father." The deity is often considered the "father of gods and of men." In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch he is the Creator of the world.59 Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, "his first-born son."60 God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is "the Father of the poor," of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61

239 By calling God "Father," the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.

59 Cf. Deut 32:6; Mal 2:10.
60 Ex 4:22.
61 Cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 68:6.
62 Cf. Isa 66:13; Ps 131:2
63 Cf. Ps 27:10; Eph 3:14;Isa 49:15

emphasis mine
and

Originally Posted by CCC

370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241

241 Cf. Isa 49:14-15; 66-13; Ps 131:2-3; Hos 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19

emphasis mine - sounds like what you said, huh?

It is important to realize that the assertion Jesus is male, Jesus is God therefore God is male doesn't work under trinitarian theology. Jesus' maleness is a characteristic of his human nature, not his divine nature.

So please stop making that false and misleading assertion.

[snoo]

Originally Posted by Stanley Milgram

Not being facetious, I really see it the other way around. Seriously. What aspect of atheism do YOU see that is appealing in regards to wishful thinking? What I find REALLY annoying is the persistent assumption that atheists are looking for opportunities to "sin". But really aren't you saying more about yourself and your own weakness? Do you think that without religion you'd be free to do whatever you want?

As an atheist, I prefer moral/ethical order to chaos. Moral order without religion is harder to articulate. But have a sincere conversation with an atheist and you will find that the concepts of "morality" or "ethics" are strong whether or not you have a god. I believe that humans have inherent in them a strong sense of morality and ethics. In fact, I believe that letting go of religion raises our personal responsibility to a much higher level. Because we have to answer to ourselves, honestly, without the fringe benefits of religion (confession, heaven,...)

I think this may be one of the best posts ever. I've thought this, but could never articulate it this well....

[magillaG]

Originally Posted by Stanley Milgram

Not being facetious, I really see it the other way around. Seriously. What aspect of atheism do YOU see that is appealing in regards to wishful thinking? What I find REALLY annoying is the persistent assumption that atheists are looking for opportunities to "sin". But really aren't you saying more about yourself and your own weakness? Do you think that without religion you'd be free to do whatever you want?

As an atheist, I prefer moral/ethical order to chaos. Moral order without religion is harder to articulate. But have a sincere conversation with an atheist and you will find that the concepts of "morality" or "ethics" are strong whether or not you have a god. I believe that humans have inherent in them a strong sense of morality and ethics. In fact, I believe that letting go of religion raises our personal responsibility to a much higher level. Because we have to answer to ourselves, honestly, without the fringe benefits of religion (confession, heaven,...)

I remember in an earlier post, you made a comment along the lines that atheism presents a reality too harsh for most people to face (sorry, I don't have the energy to go find it.) Even if you didn't say it, I am saying it- I think this is true.

The thing is, I'm not sure a lot of atheists I see post here have faced it either. I see a lot of posts wondering how believers can believe in an historical genesis. (For the record, I read genesis as myth and allegory, not as history.) But I think this really misses the point.

Dismissing religion as a fairy tale with no scientific backing, as many here do, can itself be used as an excuse. Focus on this issue, how scientifically backwards Genesis seems, and you don't really have to focus on your bolded statement (bolds are mine, of course.) I would add "hope" and "human dignity" to "moral order."

I think a good personal moral compass comes as easily to an atheist as it does to anybody else. But what about a compelling, coherent system of ethics? I think this is at least as difficult for an atheist as it is for a theist. Nobody seems to post very much on that. (Admittedly, this is probably partly because of all the posts claiming that atheism leads to amorality; I am not claiming that.)

The French existentialists of the early 20th century, for example, were atheists who really did spend a lot of time wondering what they ethical and spiritual implications for atheism really are. I haven't read them since high school, and don't know a whole lot about what they have to say- my high school self found them a little whiny and lacking rigor, as I recall. But I am a bit surprised that we don't hear quotes from them, or people like them, a little more from the atheists on this board.

Personally, I think it is more important to have a position on religion that is fruitful than it is to believe or not believe in God. Focusing on the scientific inconsistencies in Genesis is not very fruitful.

[LGW]

Originally Posted by magillaG

Personally, I think it is more important to have a position on religion that is fruitful than it is to believe or not believe in God. Focusing on the scientific inconsistencies in Genesis is not very fruitful.

good post. i don't think it's possible to gain traction with these discussions until you step back and consider the broader concept of religiosity in general (specifically, belief systems with supernatural underpinnings (and i don't want to get caught up in the minutiae of demarcation issues here*)). what are the origins of supernatural thought, why is it so appealing to human beings, and which religions have persisted/died out throughout history? despite the apparent variety that seems to exist among belief systems, the successful ones share common features at their cores. and there's a reason for that. the field of evolutionary psychology has provided some very appealing answers to these questions. religion explained by pascal boyer is a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Descalzo

but as an atheist you would have total control over what is to be considered right and wrong.

not really. certain behaviors (theft & murder are obvious examples) are considered unacceptable in basically all societies. if you behave in the "wrong" way, you'll be punished, and it doesn't have as much to do with religious morality as it does with survival.

* eg how do we draw the boundary between natural & supernatural phenomena?

[LGW]

Originally Posted by magillaG

I remember in an earlier post, you made a comment along the lines that atheism presents a reality too harsh for most people to face (sorry, I don't have the energy to go find it.) Even if you didn't say it, I am saying it- I think this is true.

and you're right.

i've taken this from a paper by a guy named jesse bering -

“but the forceful shedding of EToM [“existential theory of mind”] will probably lead to a period of intense psychological suffering and the pangs of existential crises (Frankl, 1963; May, 1960; Yalom, 1980). People must adapt a meaning-based explanatory system that is wholly reliant upon their own attribution of purpose to their experiences. William James (1902/1994) eloquently described individuals’ initial perception of a meaningless existence: ‘The world now looks remote, strange, sinister, uncanny. Its color is gone, its breath is cold, there is no speculation in the eyes it glares with’ (p. 170).”

he posits (like many others) that “the human brain is designed to see meaning behind random events, even under the wary, conscious eye of an intellect [atheist] that thinks it knows better,” and that attempts to disable the mechanism by which we perceive the intervention of divine agents will likely result in some sort of spiritual anguish.

you can find his paper on "existential theory of mind" here:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/Institu...d,90251,en.pdf

and his website is here:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/Institu...Staff/s,26383/

lots of very interesting reads, definitely worth a visit.

[Descalzo]

Originally Posted by LGW

not really. certain behaviors (theft & murder are obvious examples) are considered unacceptable in basically all societies. if you behave in the "wrong" way, you'll be punished, and it doesn't have as much to do with religious morality as it does with survival.

That's fine. I'm just saying that such a person (one who really was able to convince himself that murder wasn't wrong) would be able to convince himself that the society that punished him was wrong. Or that they were doing what they had to do just as he was doing what he had to do. Or whatever.

Either way, it was merely an example of why someone would want to be an atheist, it was not supposed to be an insistence that atheists are all immoral. Sorry if it came off that way.

[LGW]

my point was that we evolved as a species of cooperators and that this necessarily imposes certain constraints on behavior - i think this is the key to understanding the psychology of moral reasoning. this will likely come off as condescending, but to argue that someone would want to become an atheist to liberate himself from the shackles of morality is sophomoric.

[Descalzo]

Originally Posted by LGW

my point was that we evolved as a species of cooperators and that this necessarily imposes certain constraints on behavior - i think this is the key to understanding the psychology of moral reasoning. this will likely come off as condescending, but to argue that someone would want to become an atheist to liberate himself from the shackles of morality is sophomoric.

That wasn't the point. It doesn't just have to be liberation from the shackles of morality. It was simply an example of why wishful thinking might lead someone to atheism. Surely you can think of some different reason someone might want to be an atheist. Just the mere fact that you feel you have a better grip on reality would make someone want to be an atheist.

[Lucy]

Originally Posted by Steve Grondin

I think I have tried to explain this to you before, but that is FALSE that all Christians believe this. Most Christians are trinitarian, excluding some groups like Unitarians, LDS, JW, which are the most prominent (to my knowledge, at least). Trinitarians hold that God has three persons. Part of your confusion may stem from how we refer to the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the fact that when the Son was incarnated (scandal to the Jews) he came as a man, Jesus, as well as language issues with the personal pronoun for third person singular being the same for masculine and neuter.

Here are two sections from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that are directly contrary to your false assertion.

emphasis mine
and

emphasis mine - sounds like what you said, huh?

Not really. I read that as saying that God is neither male nor female, except in his incarnation as Jesus, in which he was male, of course. What I said is that God is BOTH male and female. I think that's an important distinction. Judaism sees the female as well as the male in the divine. Christianity, as best as I can tell, does not.

It is important to realize that the assertion Jesus is male, Jesus is God therefore God is male doesn't work under trinitarian theology. Jesus' maleness is a characteristic of his human nature, not his divine nature.

okay. But the male incarnation of the deity does give the worshipper a way to identify with God as a male. And The quote above sort of denies me the possibility of identifying with the Christian god as a female. The immense popularity of praying to Mary suggests to me that many Christians understand Christianity as I do, and need to look beyond G-d for a female presence in their prayer.

So please stop making that false and misleading assertion.

Sorry, I got that idea from C.S.Lewis, who was very explicit on the subject. Of course, he doesn't speak for every branchof Christianity, nor for every Christian. I gather it's subtler than I put it, but I still see an important difference in how we relate to the divine, and not just that Christians split G-d into 3 aspects.