Atheism and agnosticism thread

[rotting bones]

That seems remarkable given the centrality of empire-building, dynastic conflicts, and religious law in Islamic history. There is nothing apolitical about Muhammad and other early leaders of Islam conquering vast territories and establishing themselves as political sovereigns. Likewise the main division in Islam between the Sunnis and Shiites arose when early Muslims sparred over who should rule the Islamic empire after Muhammad died with theological differences mostly evolving secondarily. Now granted, that is looking at Islam from the outside and perhaps you're right that it looks very different from the inside.

Muslims talk politics all the time in coffee houses, coffee house culture being a Muslim invention. This is why Muslims will never understand why everyone else ascribes their political problems to religion. From the inside, it looks like their religion doesn't let them discuss politics. From the outside, the factor uniting them superficially looks like religion.

[keenir]

From the inside, Islam looks rigidly apolitical. Typically, political discussion (that doesn't have to do with charity, praying for Muslims, etc.) is forbidden inside a traditional mosque. The sheikhs are terrified of "fitna".

That seems remarkable given the centrality of empire-building, dynastic conflicts, and religious law in Islamic history. There is nothing apolitical about Muhammad and other early leaders of Islam conquering vast territories and establishing themselves as political sovereigns. Likewise the main division in Islam between the Sunnis and Shiites arose when early Muslims sparred over who should rule the Islamic empire after Muhammad died with theological differences mostly evolving secondarily.

Ie, can see that titles carried over very very easily into Islamic empires, such as "king of kings".

on the other hand, I'm sure there were times that Popes and Bishops (etc) looked at that situation, and thought "we were sooo close! If only there hadn't been rampaging chieftans declaring themselves king, we coulda done that too."

No religion, spirituality, or notions of divinity seem to reside outside the imagination of humanity. All known belief-systems are by human design.

Show me a pack of wolves making the sign of the cross, or a flock of robins engaged in meditation, even an alligator lighting a menorah, then, maybe, I'll find some value in it.

Well thats a very unfair request. For one thing, would we notice / know if a flock of robins was meditating? And, while signifigant to human Judaism, why would a menorah be part of alligator Judaism? (granted, if an alligator converted to human Judaism, it'd probably use a menorah - but someone would probably light the menorah for the alligator...I'd wager that some humans consider their pets to be part of their faith, or is that just a Christian thing?)

basically, your argument boils down to - or appears to boil down to - saying "dolphins can't have beliefs, for the reason that we've never seen a human perform any dolphinic religious practices."

(also, i don't think wolves can physically make the cross with how their wrists, shoulders, and elbows are)

you may be interested in the short story Samaritan by Connie Willis, for a look at the other side of the coin - the primate convert turning out to be an older part of the flock than they'd thought.

[masako]

According to Islam, the natural world is revealed to the faithful as an eternal prayer. The Quran says so over and over. After an (IIRC) antisemitic bit, it

Ah yes, that wonderfully non-human created book, the *checks notes* Qur'an.

basically, your argument boils down to - or appears to boil down to - saying "dolphins can't have beliefs, for the reason that we've never seen a human perform any dolphinic religious practices."

Not really...but let's go with your interpretation...Have you? Ever seen a human conduct any dolphinic religious practices?

I have doubts.

My "argument" (it's really more of an assertion) is that no religion, spirituality, or notions of divinity seem to reside outside the imagination of humanity. All known belief-systems are by human design.

you may be interested in the short story Samaritan by Connie Willis, for a look at the other side of the coin - the primate convert turning out to be an older part of the flock than they'd thought.

Shockingly, I'm not, though I do appreciate you offering me a work of fiction to somehow help support other works that I very clearly find to be just as fictional.

[Raphael]

Ie, can see that titles carried over very very easily into Islamic empires, such as "king of kings".

Wasn't that a pre-islamic Persian title?

[rotting bones]

Ah yes, that wonderfully non-human created book, the *checks notes* Qur'an.

It only stopped being a created work after the downfall of Mu'tazilism.

People see what they want to see. When Aron Ra was New Age, he could make Hare Krishnas think Krishna just walked into the room. He never used drugs. It was pure faith.

[zompist]

basically, your argument boils down to - or appears to boil down to - saying "dolphins can't have beliefs, for the reason that we've never seen a human perform any dolphinic religious practices."

Not really...but let's go with your interpretation...Have you? Ever seen a human conduct any dolphinic religious practices?

How would we know, on either side? This doesn't seem like a falsifiable proposition.

I don't think we're completely clueless about animal minds, but it's a notoriously tricky subject. E.g. it's fairly clear that dogs have some sort of theory of mind: "if I act like a maniac around this human, they'll feed me." There are better examples in Konrad Lorenz, such as the parrot who always knew when a visitor was leaving— and despite repeated attempts, could not be fooled. When the dog barks at the vacuum cleaner, it's treating it as a hostile animal.

It would be extremely bold to suggest that animals have what we'd call "religious" thoughts. On the other hand, most attempts to divide humans from (other) animals don't hold up too well. E.g. we know chimps can use tools, can wage war, can grieve. Many animals create art— bowerbirds, for instance. Grey parrots can learn at least 100 words— maybe they should be taught Toki Pona. i think it would equally be bold to declare that chimps or dolphins never experience awe. Rituals are a major part of religion, and I'd say that animals are very good at ritual. (We don't call it that, but I doubt a principled difference can be found.)

My "argument" (it's really more of an assertion) is that no religion, spirituality, or notions of divinity seem to reside outside the imagination of humanity. All known belief-systems are by human design.

So is literature; so is science; so is atheism.

[masako]

How would we know, on either side? This doesn't seem like a falsifiable proposition.

You're right, it's absurd, which is exactly why I used it to demonstrate the lack of substance inherent in religious belief.

I don't think we're completely clueless about animal minds, but it's a notoriously tricky subject. E.g. it's fairly clear that dogs have some sort of theory of mind: "if I act like a maniac around this human, they'll feed me." There are better examples in Konrad Lorenz, such as the parrot who always knew when a visitor was leaving— and despite repeated attempts, could not be fooled. When the dog barks at the vacuum cleaner, it's treating it as a hostile animal.

Causation is a concept that I'm fairly certain numerous (non-human) animals can grasp on even a basic level. That doesn't necessarily raise to the level of a supernatural ideology, or even a spirituality.

Rituals are a major part of religion, and I'd say that animals are very good at ritual. (We don't call it that, but I doubt a principled difference can be found.)

Many serial killers have/had rituals too...this doesn't seem to suggest that ritual indicates the veracity of any religious claim, simply that ritualistic practice is a feature of living creatures more than an indication that contrived belief systems hint at some mystical truth.

So is literature; so is science; so is atheism.

I completely agree. And they will each matter equally when our species is gone.

[zompist]

How would we know, on either side? This doesn't seem like a falsifiable proposition.

You're right, it's absurd, which is exactly why I used it to demonstrate the lack of substance inherent in religious belief.

I don't think it shows anything at all except your own presuppositions. The best Assyrian scholarship was that the gods spoke by creating malformed animal intestines. That's ridiculous to us, but not because we have better knowledge about what gods do. We just believe they don't do that.

Rituals are a major part of religion, and I'd say that animals are very good at ritual. (We don't call it that, but I doubt a principled difference can be found.)

Many serial killers have/had rituals too...this doesn't seem to suggest that ritual indicates the veracity of any religious claim, simply that ritualistic practice is a feature of living creatures more than an indication that contrived belief systems hint at some mystical truth.

Who's arguing for "veracity of any religious claim"? You brought up the religious life of animals.

[Raphael]

Who's arguing for "veracity of any religious claim"? You brought up the religious life of animals.

IIRC, masako's starting point, in their first post in this thread, was that they don't believe any religious claims are likely to be true because all religions they know of are limited to human beings.

[zompist]

Who's arguing for "veracity of any religious claim"? You brought up the religious life of animals.

IIRC, masako's starting point, in their first post in this thread, was that they don't believe any religious claims are likely to be true because all religions they know of are limited to human beings.

Yes, but I already responded to that, and the religious life of animals is a more interesting topic.

[masako]

The best Assyrian scholarship was that the gods spoke by creating malformed animal intestines. That's ridiculous to us, but not because we have better knowledge about what gods do. We just believe they don't do that.

Which gods? Which animals?

You brought up the religious life of animals.

As an absurd corollary to the notion that humans have some unique insight into the inner workings of the universe.

Yes, but I already responded to that, and the religious life of animals is a more interesting topic.

Curiously, no more so than the romantic life of sedimentary rock...for me, anyways.

[Travis B.]

You brought up the religious life of animals.

As an absurd corollary to the notion that humans have some unique insight into the inner workings of the universe.

What about math (and its offshoot computer science) or physics or chemistry? We have no reason to believe that these are not unique to humans of all the species here on Earth, yet they specifically constitute insights into the inner working of the universe that we have. Of course, I would expect that sentient extraterrestial beings would also develop these; there is not reason to assume that these are actually uniquely human just because they are probably unique to humans here on Earth.

[Torco]

I'm an atheist, and I think I have good reasons to think I'm right about this: I suppose this puts me in the minoritarian gnostic theist camp? it's so weird how culturally we've accepted this religious framing that you can't claim knowledge about there not being gods unless you can prove it apodictically. like, sure, I don't have infinite certainty about it, but then again, neither do we about the shape of the planet (it could all be laplacian demon shenanigans): should we call ourselves agnostic non-flat-earthers?

about religion being against the status quo... I don't know, man... it's for the most part the religious philosophers that go with stuff like tradition, this being the best possible world, obedience to authority being a virtue, conform or fuck you vibes, etcetera but then again it's undeniable that religious influences have been at the heart of a bunch of strongly transformative processes in history: liberation theology or the yellow turbans... then again, it seems to me that by definition all social movements, religious or no, are for change even if that change may be imagined as retrograde or restorative vis a vis an imagined past or whatever.

a more interesting -and also anarchist- framing of the question is whether religion tends to push towards more hierarchy or towards less hierarchy. this seems to ebb and flow with place, time and the specific religion in question: christianity was more liberatory (seems to me obvious more hierarchy equals less freedom) back, say, in the seventies, some people think the transit from romanic slave manoralism to the relatively freer regime of feudalism had to do with the egalitarian ethos of early christianity etcetera... these days, however this trend seems to lean towards more hierarchy, with countercurrents such as the pope. more likely, religion just gets used to justify what people want to justify through it: if you're a conservative your jesus is the fire and brimstone one, otherwise you may like more the we're all sons of god and therefore equal blabla. the zionist rabbis surely have judaism-based justifications for the genocide, the decent ones, judaism-based arguments for why it's wrong to exterminate palestinians and whatnot.

[Travis B.]

The key thing to remember here is the difference between traditional religions and a Deist god -- there is much about traditional religions which puts belief in them in considerable doubt, whereas a Deist god which solely created the universe and set it in motion, not interacting with it after that point, can be posited such that it is beyond disproof. That leaves the only reason to question such a god to be its very unfalsifiability, i.e. that the burden of proof is on those doing the positing, and hence being unfalsifiable means that it does not need to be disproven.

[rotting bones]

The key thing to remember here is the difference between traditional religions and a Deist god -- there is much about traditional religions which puts belief in them in considerable doubt, whereas a Deist god which solely created the universe and set it in motion, not interacting with it after that point, can be posited such that it is beyond disproof. That leaves the only reason to question such a god to be its very unfalsifiability, i.e. that the burden of proof is on those doing the positing, and hence being unfalsifiable means that it does not need to be disproven.

There is a reason I find theism unconvincing that I never managed to put into words before: I know what it means to make things at a human scale. I don't know what it means to "make" something like the Big Bang, not in a lab, but at a metaphysically rudimentary level. The concept of "making" doesn't seem to apply to "coming to be" at any elementary level. None of the simple constituents of the world as I understand it "make" things. So I don't understand the sentence "God made the world." except maybe as a poetic description.

[rotting bones]

more likely, religion just gets used to justify what people want to justify through it: if you're a conservative your jesus is the fire and brimstone one, otherwise you may like more the we're all sons of god and therefore equal blabla. the zionist rabbis surely have judaism-based justifications for the genocide, the decent ones, judaism-based arguments for why it's wrong to exterminate palestinians and whatnot.

In the final analysis, I'm sympathetic to a Zizekian argument along these lines: Traditional religions ("fundamentalisms") offer sets of rituals that claim to make you certain of whatever it is that you want to be certain about (hence the rampant cherrypicking). The motive is to do away with the anxiety of being open to the world. Now, the rituals may only work by hypnotic suggestion and therefore be less effective than claimed. Nevertheless, novices ought to ask themselves how much uncertainty about the world they really want to do without.

[Raphael]

In the final analysis, I'm sympathetic to a Zizekian argument along these lines: Traditional religions ("fundamentalisms") offer sets of rituals that claim to make you certain of whatever it is that you want to be certain about (hence the rampant cherrypicking). The motive is to do away with the anxiety of being open to the world. Now, the rituals may only work by hypnotic suggestion and therefore be less effective than claimed. Nevertheless, novices ought to ask themselves how much uncertainty about the world they really want to do without.

I'm no fan of Zizek, but this reminds me that one of the reasons I usually found it difficult to get fully on board with any religion, or, for that matter, political ideology, might have been their insistence on certainty.

[TomHChappell]

I’ll go out on a limb and tentatively hazard a speculative guess that the title of this book might possibly bear some resemblance to "The Religion Construction Kit".

please please please

Oh yes, this is ongoing. Here's the intro on my Patreon page (this post is open to all).

I wish I could afford to contribute to your Patreon!
I think I already have a use for the Kit!

[Travis B.]

The key thing to remember here is the difference between traditional religions and a Deist god -- there is much about traditional religions which puts belief in them in considerable doubt, whereas a Deist god which solely created the universe and set it in motion, not interacting with it after that point, can be posited such that it is beyond disproof. That leaves the only reason to question such a god to be its very unfalsifiability, i.e. that the burden of proof is on those doing the positing, and hence being unfalsifiable means that it does not need to be disproven.

There is a reason I find theism unconvincing that I never managed to put into words before: I know what it means to make things at a human scale. I don't know what it means to "make" something like the Big Bang, not in a lab, but at a metaphysically rudimentary level. The concept of "making" doesn't seem to apply to "coming to be" at any elementary level. None of the simple constituents of the world as I understand it "make" things. So I don't understand the sentence "God made the world." except maybe as a poetic description.

To me the way I'd see it, if I were a Deist, is that God is like a human creating a cellular automata system, except on a vastly larger scale. Unless there is a bug in the cellular automata system that allows the cellular automata to "escape" and "see" their creator somehow, or said creator put an "easter egg" in the cellular automata system for the cellular automata to observe, there is no way the cellular automata can reason as to the existence or non-existence of such a creator. However, as we humans can create our own cellular automata, we can posit that the cosmos are simply a cellular automata system on a great scale in which we are cellular automata ourselves.

[rotting bones]

To me the way I'd see it, if I were a Deist, is that God is like a human creating a cellular automata system, except on a vastly larger scale. Unless there is a bug in the cellular automata system that allows the cellular automata to "escape" and "see" their creator somehow, or said creator put an "easter egg" in the cellular automata system for the cellular automata to observe, there is no way the cellular automata can reason as to the existence or non-existence of such a creator. However, as we humans can create our own cellular automata, we can posit that the cosmos are simply a cellular automata system on a great scale in which we are cellular automata ourselves.

Relevant to my confusion: A cellular automaton is an idea. I don't understand the implementation part.

Relevant to theism vs. atheism: For God to be an explanation, God has to be simple. All this does is shift the complexity of the world to the complexity of God.