Nihilism masquerading in denial
As such, atheism is a result that is, by nature--it is, after all, an idea--ignorant of its effects. Atheists, however, need not maintain that particular lack of information.
But questions of why are never far from my mind, and far be it for me to demand the biographical why of anybody. But still, there is the aspect of why which does not regard "from what circumstance," and asks instead, "toward what end?"
This is why I try to keep atheism small and force the positive identification. "Atheist" really should be a response to a very specific question not an identification and certainly not a standard to rally the troops into battle.
Frankly, there are no axioms to identify. The word 'atheism' is a misnomer in that it indicates a doctrine or set of principles that really does not exist.
What's left, for me, is more along the lines of a set of methods for working things out on the fly although I don't know if I can identify it even that concisely. It certainly does not entail a wholesale rejection of theistic philosophy. The prospect seems to me absurd. At the very least it should be viewed by the atheist as a human expression and worthy of study. "Truth is where you find it." is a favorite saying of mine and the task then becomes one of distilling the truth out of any endeavor.
In the end I am willing to work on a practical level and here I am more concerned with pulling the teeth out of the beast than slaying it. The problem here is one of scope. On an individual basis I can work pretty much within whatever paradigm is prevalent. I can speak Christianity to Christians and pseudo-scientific mysticism to Wayne if need be. But when we discuss matters of efficiency the larger the group I am speaking to the broader strokes I need to use to cover the discussion. And here is where I think the broad-scale atheistic rejection comes from.
All of which goes to offer an anemic explanation the attitude problem I can't seem to shake in this topic. It's like the title: Of course it's futile, because this is what people choose.
Agreed, but is this simply nihilism masquerading itself in denial? Because lurking at the end of most of these tethers, theistic or atheistic, that's what I find. Are we really just this unhealthy as a species? Do we stumble headlong into death because we're running blindly from it? There has got to be a better way. How about we try to work out a way of
living better?
And there's a measure of sympathy there, too. I know it hurts for many atheists, banging their heads against the theistic wall. It doesn't have to be this way. But by and large, if religion is a sickness, then the healthy folks either have to quarantine altogether--a losing proposition, as "normal" is statistically analogous to "sick"--or work to heal the sick.
That's the problem though, isn't it? What other way is there? I've learned to avoid the pointy parts but I'm still just banging away. For all of that I imagine your noggin is rather sore too. Sometimes I want to quit and sometimes I want to bring out the sledgehammer but in the end certain realizations force us to sympathy and compassion.
You can spot these as the most viciously cruel and condemning indictments against religions in history, which seem to forget that they are, in fact, regarding in some cases medieval mass superstition.
Not to mention economics, politics, technological developments, as well as cultural influences. Religion does not and has never existed in a vacuum; it's disingenuous to select it as a singular factor in any historical setting.
Likewise, it is irresponsibility in the seeker which leads to that loss of utility and meaning. The problem remains human-level.
The problem is indeed human level but I disagree that the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the seeker. Mystical symbolism is loaded with meaning
that is not entirely within the control of the mystic. Therein it becomes a linguistic problem, the proper context, symbology, references, interpretation, are all needed for a proper conveyance or the intent is lost. I might refer here to Wayne, who has mystified quantum mechanics into utter meaninglessness.
Meanwhile, al-Ghazzali illustrates my point precisely. What exactly would constitute knowledge of the ineffable? The inexpressible isn't knowledge it's experience. The mystic seeks to transmit this experience which is beyond words or knowing. But reading al-Ghazzali's quotation one would think that not only does this knowledge exist but that is obtainable by only a select few. Elitist is exactly correct. As such it becomes irrelevant to the rest of us, purely a basis for more authoritarian doctrine. How much difference really is there between this quotation and R.C.C. intercessory doctrine?
In the end I wonder whether mysticism has any value as a method. It seems to me that it's more a manner of thought that is peculiar to certain individuals. More experience with mystically oriented cultures would behoove me in this analysis but I just don't see that the mystical experience translates very well. Perhaps it can be judiciously trained but it cannot just be handed over. Principles, such as unity, seem to me to be better expressed in more precise terms.
I know the feeling. But the presumption to judge such a necessity is as severe as the presumption of God when you get right down to the result; that the process is different is incidental.
Are you certain? I've seen you aim for a massive reorientation in your posts, is that any less of a shock? Is there anyway to initiate a paradigm shift that won't be a shock? The only difference I see is that you aim for a particular goal while a flat refutation merely stresses the initial paradigm and does not suggest an alternative; it leaves it to the individual. One is goal oriented and perhaps kinder in offering an alternative but it's no less presumptuous or a shock.
I do think the shock approach, both at Sciforums and in the American culture at least, has lost its value. People just get annoyed these days. It never occurs to most that you're just frustrated and you might have a point.
I agree, the in your face method does not work. I didn't mean it quite that way. You sneak it up on them. It's like telling a joke, you lead them along and then force a reevaluation.
Is the travesty to be eradicated or healed? That's a vital question to me, because it is the essential difference between the surgeon's knife and a dagger in the heart.
I'd like to see it healed if possible.
To back it up a couple of posts ... this I understand, but I do think that many atheists who don't have it all figured out are, in fact, pretending they have. It may not be a lack of ideas, but a lack of the ability to communicate those ideas. How important is the idea, then? Obviously, not very, or else they would learn to communicate it. If God whispered the answers in your ear, how would you or any atheist--or anybody--know?
And that's always been a critical question for me. Shouldn't divine truth be rather obvious or at least irrefutable? As I put it to one Christian, "If I could prove that Jesus did not exist or that he was not the Son of God, would you believe what you do? If not, is it really the truth?"
As to knowing what that truth is, well shit if I knew that I would be the next messiah. And that's the shift I'd like to see in both atheists and theists; the realization that their grasp on absolutes is illusory. Maybe if we all realized that we're all just trying to paint the best picture that we can, that what we're painting isn't reality itself but an abstraction, a model. Maybe then we could just help each other paint better pictures, build better models.
If I go a million light years out, and you go two million light years out, did either one of us reach the end of the Universe? I find atheism is generally more practical in certain aspects, seeking reality instead of relying on illusion. But compared to the mere idea of the absolute, the difference is almost inapplicable.
It's always going to be that way. At some point expediency wins out and we must simply work with what is practical because the absolute and the infinite are always going to be beyond our reach. And while I agree that measured against the infinite the difference is negligible, I am again forced to consider which
is more practical. Again, I would emphasize that this should not include a wholesale rejection of the theistic paradigm; merely a reinterpretation of its meaning.
While I agree that I would like to see a certain foundation laid--whether one's opinion moves them to say, "much earlier", or "as a mandatory cornerstone", or even "at all"--I do think that this will prove, especially as we move into practical applications of that information, more difficult than most are prepared to imagine.
It's more a matter of critical thinking skills IMO. What is knowledge, what constitutes a sound argument, what is evidence, how does one weigh and measure such things? I work with someone who is an extreme example of the lack of such an education. He's fallen into a downward spiral of conspirational thought. Any evidence that suggests conspiracy is indeed evidence of a conspiracy. Any evidence that suggests there isn't a conspiracy is evidence of a cover up. It's a sad and frightening thing to watch as his grasp on reality becomes more and more tenuous. I wouldn't be surprised if he is institutionalized someday.
The younger generation may be taking in and organizing more information, and more useful information, but in addition to the philosophy of science, something people seem to lack more and more of these days is the ability to communicate. Sadly, it has a strange amount to do with issues pertaining to conformity.
Indeed. And it's not just a matter of using the vernacular or cultural forms. The ability of the population in general to effectively communicate either in speech or written form seems to be rapidly decreasing. It's not even a matter of spelling or grammar it's a basic inability to articulate one's thoughts coherently. Or even scarier it's a direct indication of the status of their thoughts.
Ah, what ever happened to the idea of "well-rounded" education?
We've rounded it off to the lowest common denominator. If the children cannot pass the test we'll just change the test (re: Bush's "No child gets left behind" Act). Never mind it's a disservice to the children and forget hiring more teachers or developing improved methods, we've got to get those numbers up. Let's face it, intellectualism and standards are equated with elitism and oppression in our society. And heaven forbid we oppress the masses by insisting on proper English, teaching scientific facts that contradict religious fantasies, or even worse teaching them how to think for themselves.
In the meantime ... I'm compelled to comment somehow about the discussion with Wayne, but ... yeah. It's an unfamiliar layer of accretions I see in that. I want to tell you to draw a loop from the end of one of his sentences to come around to the beginning, though I beg your pardon if God only knows what good that would do.
I didn't think I needed to draw one, I thought it made a nice little circle all on its own. But it's a good example. How does one go about disrupting the self-reinforcing loop? I mean honestly, he's all but undecipherable and almost oblivious to any interjection at all.
~Raithere