Re: THE ORIGIN OF ATHEISM

I am butting in coz I'm an interfering sociologically trained humanist
.... feel free to ignore or respond as you see fit. I'm just throwing a
few thoughts out while at work.

Simon Says:
I am a bit torn between answering your posts point by point or trying
to build a more coherent argument in general. I think I will opt for
the latter option, although may try to draw a couple points from your
posts as well.


As far as I can see there are two main branches in the arguement on
the legitimacy of religious belief - the metaphysical/philosophical and

the psychological.Starting with the psychological, I think one needs to

look at society and social problems, and how religion effects this:


At the moment, in western society, the two biggest problems facing us
are obesity and mental health. At a time where material provision is no

longer really an issue, we find that there is less of a need to be
dependant on other people. Now granted society still works through a
system of inter-dependance, however this has very much become a
business where personal interaction and trust is no longer really a
necessity. As an example, I am sure one would trust and rely on their
neighbours far more if there was a risk of being eaten by lions as soon

as we stepped out of our front door! As a result of this breakdown in
social relations we have found people becoming increasingly more
"individualised", thinking they can rely on themselves, and as a
consequence caring far less about the welfare of others in their
community.


- My first thought in this is that you have provided a fairly standard
conservative (with a 'small' c obviously ... I'm not implying a
political aspect at this juncture) conjecture that society no longer
has a community that previously existed. Clearly in a superficial
sense this is strictly true, but it's highly dependant on making any
number of sweeping generalisations about the way we live and work.
Society has become less 'neighbourhood' based if you like but this is
mainly because industry is no longer mainly governed through single
dominant organisations. My hometown, for example, was effectively
built by Brunel with the vast majority of workers in the 19th C. living
and working with their neighbours in the only industry that actually
mattered which was the railways. The entire town was virtually built
for that purpose so it's inevitable that a single industry in towns
within the UK (such as cotton, steel, textiles) would unite groups and
provide a commonality to their relationships. We no longer live with
such vast primary and secondary industries dominating our lives
therefore work has become more diverse. So while I agree that
'neighbourhoods' bear little resemblance to working realtionships even
as recent as 30 years ago, it's because the emphasis has shifted due to
the change in the nature that we work. It is primarily a geographical
and economic change, not a socially driven one.


Simon goes on to say:
Sadly this cultural trend is reflected starkly within the
number of people being admitted to mental health programs, both with
neurotic and psychotic symptoms. I do not have any figures immediately
to hand however I seem to recall that something like a third of all
women in the UK have had eating disorders, and something like 40% of
18-30s have alcoholic problems. There are also increasing suicide rates

in developed countries as people no longer feel needed, and are too
pressurised to give results. I am reliably informed by professional
psychologists that I know (such as my fiance) that much of this has to
do with a break-down in family and community units.

- This is very true in many cases... but there are many reasons for
that break down of course. Saying that an increase in mental illnesses
is a result of break downs in close family/community relationships is a
bit like saying that Police are catching more criminals these days
however. It doesn't really answer anything.

Simon continues:
And here is the crux of the psychological side of my argument. One of
the main functions of religion (and perhaps the reason why religion
evolved) is to foster community bonds. Being a member of a local
church/synagogue/mosque/ temple allows one to actively participate in
their community at many levels. Religious communities are not like
sports teams or political parties that come together for one specific
activity, but rather represent a highly interdependant network of
people. The reason why religion has evolved is because such communities

meet psychological and physical needs, and are a way of supporting
individuals no matter what their life situation may be. Such needs
cannot be met by individualistic society.

- I agree that superficially this is why religion exists as it does.
This does not mean it is necessary for religion to exist once we are
aware of the reasons for its function (to provide communality) as this
can be fostered through any number of other non-theistic ways.
Religion can also be incredibly divisive. If you want me to start
citing examples of how harmful religion can be in this respect then
we'll be here all day.

Society is, inherently, not individualistic either. We have become
aware, and insist on, certain rights and prerogatives as part of that
society and this seems to be what a great deal of the religious right
baulk at (e.g. rights for gays, women - in the past for blacks of
course). Yet we cannot exist without social discourse and interaction
and this is what we see on a day to day basis. With the religious
filter on a new discourse is overlaid that says 'but this isn't how it
should be' which creates the impression of an increasingly chaotic and
disorganised environment (obviusly I'm simplifying here, but you get
the point).

You continue with:
Baring this in mind I think an adequate explanation can be provided in

answer to the comments:



Brett Aubrey wrote:

> Do I understand you correctly? Your "meta-sentience" is the rough
> equivanent of all the other deities (e.g. God, Allah, Thor, Ra, Odin,
> Brahma, Jupiter, Zeuss, etc., etc.) wrapped up in one, each of which appears
> to be different due to reasons of cultural and tradition? I find this
> rather difficult to believe, so please confirm, refute or clarify. I can
> see why you might be hesitant to define ANY characteristics. Either way, do
> you think your view is the only true view? It seems to me that you're just
> adding one more God to an already crowded Heaven. Are you - as far as you
> know - alone in this belief ar are you a member of a sect that believes
> this? If so, what is it?



and


> This hesitation seems like a cop-out, especially in light of your previous
> statement that "it is very easy to disprove a defined God character/being"
> (not that I necessarily agree with this.) It seems the only reason that you
> hesitate to state the nature of your God is that someone might "disprove"
> that God to you. This makes me think that your faith is rather tenuous (I
> don't think this is necessarily a bad thing at all).


As I said before I do not think any one religion is the "right"
religion. I do however think that it is up to each one of us to make up

our minds as to the tradition we want to be part of, and then
participate in it whole-heartedly. For me this happens to be
Christianity, however I am sure if I was brought up in India I would be

a faithful Hindu (if you can call Hinduism a religion!).

- Of course it's a religion ... why would you consider it otherwise?

You continue:
I am not
promoting one God over others, just simply stating that it is easier to

choose a religion and then work within it. Most religions have the
capacity for a great deal of free and original thought. Working within
a religion does not limit ones options, but rather allows one to
explore within an interpretive framework.


- This opens the question as to why it's necessary at all in that case?
What does religion provide that cannot be provided from dealing
directly with individuals. You cut out all that business of the 'one
true god' (you might not believe in it, but millions do and will
continue to do so) that causes all the conflict in the first place.

If it's a personal choice and philosophy rather than a 'higher calling'
then I don't see why you need a god or gods in the first place. It all
seems rather redundant. I'd rather believe in people and try and lead
a positive life and hopefully make some difference for the better to
those I know and the wider community of people.


You carry on to say:
Anyway, moving on to my second reason:


From a philophical/metaphysical point of view it is impossible to
prove there is no God, however it is possible to prove there "might be
a God" by simply showing how naturalism can both break down, and in the

end not really provide that many useful answers. Hints are given by the

breakdown of methodological naturalism (Godels theorum, uncertainty
theorums, quantum mechanics), the existance of sentience (as I
mentioned before), and of course the age old problem of "first cause".


- Ah .... here I will have to disagree and I'm sure many of those with
far stronger scientific backgrounds will back me up in saying that as
far as quantuum mechanics etc go, you are still looking at verifiable
and empirically testable concepts. String theory is pushing the boat
out a bit as far as I'm aware, but everything else fits neatly into
naturalist methodology. Even if the results are a little strange at
times you are going to have to go some to explain how this demonstrates
a higher power of whatever colour. Sentience existing is not a problem
at all and here you are succumbing to cultural determinism (there must
be a purpose to things simply because we exist and can ponder on that
existence). Same goes for first cause ... the fact that we don't know
'x' doesn't automatically mean it must have been 'god'. This is the
classic 'god of the gaps' argument. What we actually require is
positive evidence for a god or other being - not assertions that as we
don't know something it must have been something we are not aware of.
This doesn't seem to be a profitable line of enquiry with respect to
the debate about evolution except as philisophical musings.


You continue:
I think people from both sides of this debate need to answer the
question "why did the universe bother to exist?" A theist can answer
that "God willed it". A non-theist can only really look at his shoes.

- Then at least we are honest. We can actually quite truthfully put
our hands in the air and say 'we don't know ... but we're quite keen to
see if we can find out'. The idea that 'god willed it' is a dead end.
Note that you can still believe that 'god willed x' and then
investigate how 'god willed it' but to all intents and purposes the
results of that investigation seem to demonstrate that he/she/it had a
remakably naturalistic methodology running behind it all (as well as
being inordinately fond of beetles of course)


You conclude:
As far as I am concerned the concept of God takes the argument one step

beyond the limits of an atheist argument. Coupling this to the
"package" of arguments I have mentioned before, I think it is clear
that remaining open to the concept of the "divine" is the wisest thing
to do.

- Ah ... Pascal's wager I believe. I think this may have been
challenged once or twice if memory serves.

Afterall remaining open to possibility is always more advisable
than being dogmatic about a belief.

- I agree. Yet what you are asking is being 'open minded' without
question. That is the basis of faith after all. If it is not, then
you may as well dispense with the notion of both faith and religion and
relax about it. No, we don't have all the answers. No, we definitely
won't have all the answers in our lifetimes. However, we do have this
opportunity to make this one life, this single existence, the best
possible one we can. Religion, in my view, detracts from that by
claiming that all the answers are contained within a certain set of
beliefs or codices. It inhibits rather than releases. Let go of those
restrictions and the world is suddenly consumed with possibilities.


Anyway, when you guys get round to answering these arguments please be

more creative than simply rolling out the tooth-fairy and easter bunny
arguments, as such tangents do get rather tiresome.

- You are right - they are. But so do assertions toward atheists that
they are close-minded and igoring some deeper truth. Cuts both ways.


Simon

.