When I left Christianity in my early 20s, I was pretty much on my own. I had to ask all the hard questions myself and then find answers to them.
Since then, I have worked with many people who have struggled with the issues of leaving their religion, and one thing that I keep coming back to is this question: If there is no God, why does everybody think that there is?
That was another of those difficult questions that I had to answer on my own.
I think it is because the Idea Of God is a natural result of how our minds and civilizations work.
Clearly, there doesn't have to be an actual supernatural entity guiding us and changing the world for us all to act as though our actions would be pleasing to such a god. National boundaries have no actual existence beyond the human-defined conventions that draw lines on a map, yet we can all agree that the line between one country and the next actually does exist.
It exists simply because we all agree that it exists. It is from us, and for us to decide.
In the same way, we can choose to define god as a collection of human conventions that when practiced lead to harmony, happiness, and peace in ourselves and in the world.
It is this conceptual god that refuses to be dismissed, even when we go through all the arguments for the secular world that atheists can make.
Understanding, and ultimately helping to define, this conceptual god in a secular world that brings the spiritual and scientific back into unity should be the goal of atheists going forward.
I don't see the "why do they believe in a god" question so difficult to answer. They believe simply because they're told to. Most have been trained from an early age to believe. Then you have a cultural bias that rewards that belief. Both those are why the god idea sticks around and mucks up everything. There is nothing special about god beliefs, and all those killed in the name of a religion don't see much love coming from a god.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
But I would invite others to consider that if people believe because they were told to, and those doing the telling were themselves taught to believe, this ultimately leads to the first telling.
Now, why did that happen?
Why does there seem to always be a cultural bias toward the creation and following of myths? Understanding that, I think, can be quite valuable.
Although many ills have been performed in the name of belief, that is not its only facet, and pretending otherwise leaves little room for those questioning their faith and trying to look beyond.
We who have been through the journey of our own questioning have an opportunity to reach out a hand to those still on their path. Our way is not simply one of bitterness and anger, although those can be important tools to help break the chains.
But looking beyond that, we have an opportunity to help define spirituality with a modern aesthetic that is in alignment with our secular and scientific world.
We need not sacrifice our reason to behold the sacred.
But I would invite others to consider that if people believe because they were told to, and those doing the telling were themselves taught to believe, this ultimately leads to the first telling.
Now, why did that happen?
Someone made up gods in order to explain things they knew nothing about. It's that simple. There's no need to make anything magical about it, just a "god of the gaps."
Why does there seem to always be a cultural bias toward the creation and following of myths? Understanding that, I think, can be quite valuable.
They can also be quite harmful. It's time to get rid of the god idea, not repackage it.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Danny, I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from. I can read your words in a few different ways. Are you saying that spirituality (not dependent on a God) has been hijacked by religion? My view is that people stay in religion for community, security, and the warm and fuzzy feeling of being fed the answers. Take this away and some are left with a "cold" cruel world because they have been trained to view atheism and atheists in this manner. Admittedly, atheists have not provided an attractive alternative to individuals drawn to a warm and loving community.
I assume your title "God is Love" represents a road block to lack in belief. If I'm understanding you correctly, I highly agree.
I used to belong to a New Thought church which, in my view has cornered the market in the "God is Love" view. It was only until I questioned "what if God is not Love" that my views collapsed. Addressing the "God is Love" is doable, it all depends on the religion.
We need not sacrifice our reason to behold the sacred. I love this line. Here's the catch -- I think that "beholding the sacred" or magnificence of this life isn't something every atheist, agnostic, or theist does naturally or intuitively. Certain personalities are drawn toward the poetic, the wonder, and awe of this world and appreciate it with tremendous gratitude. Yet this is not everyone. Some would rather debate and approach the world from an intellectual, fact based position. If you wish to "convert" the God is Love crowd, it takes a type of personality that is a rarity amongst atheists who are currently in the leadership position.
Why does there seem to always be a cultural bias toward the creation and following of myths? Understanding that, I think, can be quite valuable.
Humans are story telling animals. Stories are how we deal with our fears and aspirations and how we learn how to be one of "Our people." It is important to not accept stories uncritically, but to learn the important things for one's life while realizing particularly in old hoary stories that many things may not be appropriate for modern life.
But looking beyond that, we have an opportunity to help define spirituality with a modern aesthetic that is in alignment with our secular and scientific world.
We need not sacrifice our reason to behold the sacred.
I like to maintain a distinction between spiritual and sacred and transcendent and numinous. I think it is useful to keep the "god" words separate from the "human" words, even though they arise from the same human emotions.
J'Carlin If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
"Spiritual" and "Sacred" are loaded and overused terms.
Spiritual:
I fondly remember a pleasant evening after planting an apricot tree. Perfect air temperature. Beautiful sunset. The scent of fresh vegetation in the air. Birds chirping and flitting about. I felt especially connected to the rest of the natural world. Some might refer to this as a "spiritual" experience. I view it as simple recognition of and appreciation of reality ... a perspective one should cultivate 24/7. Referring to it as a "spiritual" experience adds an unnecessary layer of woo-woo, severs it from everyday life, and denigrates other experiences. Such moments shouldn't be rare enough to warrant a specific term.
Sacred:
When an object, a book, a piece of land, etc. is labeled "sacred", everything else appears not worth protecting. For example ... suppose our society agrees to consider a forest "sacred" ... it makes it easier to clear-cut or pave over other forests. Natural areas are either all sacred or all subject to exploitation. Let's get rid of "sacred" and agree to do our best to preserve as much as we can.
I'm probably not explaining this well, but there's my two and a half cents.
"Some people claim that there's a woman to blame. But I know it's my own damn fault."
I don't have problem using the words "spiritual" and "sacred". They seem appropriate enough even in explicitly secular and naturalistic contexts. I use them fairly often.
I agree. This is a matter of how one chooses to express himself. I think DanielElf has started a good topic - one that needs to be addressed. Let's not get off on a tangent.
By the way DanielElf, what type of creative work do you do? Graphics, fantasy stuff... Just putting it out there, you have that vibe. (not to get off topic :) )
Danny, I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from. I can read your words in a few different ways. Are you saying that spirituality (not dependent on a God) has been hijacked by religion? My view is that people stay in religion for community, security, and the warm and fuzzy feeling of being fed the answers. Take this away and some are left with a "cold" cruel world because they have been trained to view atheism and atheists in this manner. Admittedly, atheists have not provided an attractive alternative to individuals drawn to a warm and loving community.
I assume your title "God is Love" represents a road block to lack in belief. If I'm understanding you correctly, I highly agree.
I used to belong to a New Thought church which, in my view has cornered the market in the "God is Love" view. It was only until I questioned "what if God is not Love" that my views collapsed. Addressing the "God is Love" is doable, it all depends on the religion.
We need not sacrifice our reason to behold the sacred. I love this line. Here's the catch -- I think that "beholding the sacred" or magnificence of this life isn't something every atheist, agnostic, or theist does naturally or intuitively. Certain personalities are drawn toward the poetic, the wonder, and awe of this world and appreciate it with tremendous gratitude. Yet this is not everyone. Some would rather debate and approach the world from an intellectual, fact based position. If you wish to "convert" the God is Love crowd, it takes a type of personality that is a rarity amongst atheists who are currently in the leadership position.
The idea behind my "God Is Love" idea is that we should proactively define what god is, rather than allowing traditional religion to be the default.
God isn't anything without our understanding. There is no actual or intrinsic deity. This is, of course, a secular concept. There can be no god but that which we choose to define for ourselves.
So let's define it well. And while we're at it, let's define it using intellectual, fact-based, science-based and psychologically valid practices.
To the extent that we value the overall well-being of a people, defining a set of behaviors that benefits ourselves and society, and then defining those behaviors as being god-like can be of value, particularly because we seem sort of wired for that. Through language and history we naturally observer a reality beyond our own bodies and our own time.
So I guess I would say that spirituality has been hijacked by religion, or by mysticism. However, not all religions rely so heavily on supernatural magic as some. I can imagine an utterly secular and scientific practice that we would recognize for us what religion is for believers.
And given that people do stay in religion for the security, comfort, and answers, perhaps there is value in creating a secular, but sacred, place that could draw people out of mysticism and into pragmatic, solution-oriented practices in their families and communities.
