There are many different ways to read the bible. Mainly, the bible is not a literal instructional manual unless you are a fundamentalist. And fundamentalists suck. For others, it's a written record of humanity's relationship with God. It's also a collection of writings from a number of different authors and genres - it has history, poetry, letters, and so on. The old testament was written by people thousands of years ago who had an imperfect understanding of God, nature, humans, society, etc.
In large part, the story of Jesus demonstrates how we should reject those archaic rules of our ancestors and act according to very simple principles; nonviolence, love for God, and love for all humans.
I became an atheist/agnostic as a teenager and now in my late 20's I have slowly come back to religion. So I am really interested in this topic.
My comment is specifically about online atheist communities, because I think they are often toxic to both religion and to atheism itself. A lot of these communities are hyper-focused on fundamentalism, to their own detriment.
These online atheists communities can be very unfortunate. Your noble search for the truth leads you to question religion - but then you get caught in an echo chamber spending a lot of energy hating on others for their beliefs. A noble pursuit devolved into hatred and groupthink. On the other hand, fundamentalists took a religion which preaches love and acceptance and twisted it into something bitter and hateful. I think it's kind of poetic how much those two communities mirror each other.
The fixation on fundamentalism is a combination of two things. First, there are people from those fundamentalist churches who were damaged in some way and have now swung way to the opposite extreme of hating all religion. They grew up learning to see the world through rigid dogma, and online atheist communities tend to be fairly dogmatic themselves. Not hard to see the appeal there. Second, and probably more common, are atheists who never had any close contact with fundamentalism but they justify their beliefs by taking on the low-hanging fruit. It is very easy to pick on young-earth creationists, vehement anti-gay groups, prosperity gospel, etc. Those groups' thinking really does rely on fear and hate, things that the bible actually tells us to reject.
What happens when you tell one of those angry atheists that yes, you're a Christian, but you also find evolution to be very cool, you know that the universe is billions of years old, you are pro choice, and you don't believe everything in the bible literally happened? Well, they aren't really sure what to do with you. Because they spend all their time congratulating themselves for being smarter than the lowest common denominator of religion, they aren't really able to have a more sophisticated conversation about their beliefs.
As a religious person, it is a bit frustrating that you never see atheists confronting the great theologists and religious philosophers - Origen, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Kierkegaard, or even contemporary thinkers like Alasdair McIntyre. If Christians' beliefs are really so shallow and stupid, those guys should be super easy to refute, right? They think that all Christians are anti-science when Christian monks were pivotal in the discovery of genetics and the big bang theory, among other scientific achievements. They ignore that some giants of Enlightenment philosophy, like Descartes and Spinoza, were attempting to use new rational methods to affirm the existence of God in their major works.
The problem is, when you are an atheist engaging in the really complex arguments posed by the most intelligent and eloquent religious people of history, the waters become very muddy. You might even have to concede, just a little bit, that you take your atheism on faith, too. It's much easier to feel good about bashing the usual suspects - Joel Osteen, the 700 Club, Westboro Baptist and friends. And so a lot of people get sucked into that low-level discourse, and never get a chance to make the exhilarating journey back to religion. I don't really care if someone stays an atheist, many good people are atheists. But I do care if they never get a chance to see the promise of religion because of toxic echo chambers and groupthink.
As a religious person, I don't hate outspoken atheists. In fact, I very much respect them - they are people who care deeply about the truth. In that respect, they have something in common with any thoughtful religious person.
> just a little bit, that you take your atheism on faith
Well, that's the whole point: Atheists don't.
Indeed we can't explain everything, not even close. But we don't have any reason to even remotely believe in any kind of supernatural power, which in turn begs an explanation it self ad infinitum.
You don't have any reason that you have considered. Which is totally fine. The problem comes when atheists believe a priori that any argument for God's existence would be automatically false, even the ones they have never heard or considered.
Your statement suggests there are infinitely many hypotheses that posit "a thing exists, but there is no evidence for it". Then you say others have failed to (properly) consider those hypotheses that you choose to believe. (Which may or not be true, but no evidence either way is evident.)
However, aren't you also saying you are not willing to (properly) consider the infinitely many alternative hypotheses to your own, much less the negation hypothesis of "NOT God"?
Which is better then? To choose to believe in one untestable hypothesis or to believe in none?
A suggestion that there are things you haven't heard of doesn't equate to infinite things. Let's say there are 10 arguments for God's existence, but the only one you are familiar with is "a thing exists, but there is no evidence for it", isn't my statement accurate?
In turn, your statement suggests that all possible ideas about religion for the past thousands of years of human history can be boiled down to a single sentence. You have assumed that everything you don't know about religion is exactly the same as the very little you do know about it. Which one of us is supposed to be close-minded again?
I am willing to consider anything and listen to what anybody has to say. As I said in my post above I went through an atheist period of my own, after all.
>What happens when you tell one of those angry atheists that yes, you're a Christian, but you also find evolution to be very cool, you know that the universe is billions of years old, you are pro choice, and you don't believe everything in the bible literally happened? Well, they aren't really sure what to do with you. Because they spend all their time congratulating themselves for being smarter than the lowest common denominator of religion, they aren't really able to have a more sophisticated conversation about their beliefs.
I'd say you're being inconsistent with your religion and that the religious part of how you came to these views is unnecessary. Sure I agree attacking the very worst of religion is easy, but even at its very best, religion doesn't make a compelling argument for its necessity.
The reason for fixation on fundamentalism is because they have the most consistent story that can be argued against. Once you start cherry picking whatever pieces of the bible seem like it could fit into today's social norms and current understanding of the physical world, you're basically showing none of it necessary.
What would you say to someone that believes a giant turtle created everything, is the one true god and also held those same stances on evolution etc? They just prepend the fact that a giant turtle created everything and then vanished without a trace. Anyone could come up with a number of creative stories that are unverifiable or disprovable and seemingly are compatible with our current scientific understanding of the world. What makes your god or any god(s) in particular more reasonable or necessary than the great turtle?
I think you betray your lack of understanding by categorizing any religious belief aside from fundamentalism as "cherry picking whatever pieces of the bible...". There is a 2,000 year old tradition of hermeneutic interpretation of the bible, resulting in dozens of different, more nuanced approaches to reading and thinking about the book. But you've brushed all that aside as "cherry picking" so that your criticism can still be coherent without having to make any effort to learn more than you already know. You must maintain a narrow, simplistic definition of religion in order to retain confidence in your belief system. Isn't that a bit backwards?
One individual making up a story about a turtle is not a religion. Religions emerge from thousands of years of collective human consciousness. The stories are told and retold from millions of mouths to millions of ears. You understand that input to a human's cognitive system can shape their perception, consciousness, behavior, of course? These stories and characters have accompanied us through every technological revolution from agriculture to smartphones. Repeated through countless generations, they have literally shaped us as a species. With that suggestion in mind, can you really confront the idea that God is "The Word", and that we are "made in his image", without even a tiny amount of awe and wonder?
Ok ignoring the appeal to tradition, how would you argue for hinduism over christianity or vice versa? Both are 2k+ years old with very different beliefs at their core. Reincarnation vs an afterlife, single vs many gods.
Nothing about having a long history and nuanced approaches over the years answers my question of necessitation.
It's easy to see parallels if you really want to look. The cycle of reincarnation is the thing that Hindus want to escape from (both seek unity with god), and it can be described as monotheistic as well.
No that is the entirety of your comment. Without the appeal to tradition there is nothing separating a random turtle god from an actual religion.
If there is more than an appeal to tradition how would you argue for or against different religions? Religions with as much tradition as Christianity - Hinduism, Buddhism, and even some monarchies and dynasties also have the same stories that are told by millions of mouths to millions of years over generations as you say.
I don’t understand atheist online communities like you talk about. I’m very much an atheist, but I’m baffled by anyone who desires to have atheist get-togethers. What is the point? is it like fake bacon for people who like the taste of being preached to and preaching, but are atheist? Religious people do it because their are supposed to but what reason would atheists do it? When you were exploring atheism why did you go?
People tend to participate in online communities that affirm their sense of identity. Maybe people who get really involved are those who see atheism as a more important aspect of their identity?
I was definitely turned on to atheism on the internet, but I never really stuck around those forums. I grew up in a fairly liberal Catholic church, so I didn't really relate to all the vehemence against fundamentalism. Even though I grew up in a church, I didn't even know about "young earth creationism" until I learned about it from atheists on the internet. In my science class in Catholic school, we learned all about evolution. We used the same textbooks as the public schools. I don't remember hearing anything bad about LGBT, though I'm sure people talked about it since it was the early 2000's and gay marriage was still a real widespread controversy, as incredibly dumb as that seems now.
Overall I guess my experience was very different from someone who grew up conservative protestant and found atheism. As a result I never hated religion, just didn't believe in it for a while.
This is such a refreshing comment. It's far better to engage in dialogue with those whom you disagree in order to understand their position opposed to assuming they are evil, stupid, or otherwise sub-human. Wouldn't it be wonderful if such an approach was applied not only to religious conversations but those of politics, work disputes, conflicts with your significant other...everything?
> As a religious person, it is a bit frustrating that you never see atheists confronting the great theologists and religious philosophers - Origen, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Kierkegaard, or even contemporary thinkers like Alasdair McIntyre. If Christians' beliefs are really so shallow and stupid, those guys should be super easy to refute, right?
The main issue with most of these philosophical arguments is that they don't prove anything even worth refuting. Almost all of them simply attempt to prove the existence of a deistic God that does not meaningfully interact with the world (beyond creating it or sustaining it).
Deistic Gods by their vary nature don't provide any meaningful knowledge. Believing that there was a creator doesn't provide any useful information about how to help live your life or how the world works.
As a starting point I don't think there are any good arguments for why a person should believe that the bible was influenced/written by God any more than other books.
I already replied to your comment below, but this one is interesting too.
> The main issue with most of these philosophical arguments is that they don't prove anything even worth refuting. Almost all of them simply attempt to prove the existence of a deistic God that does not meaningfully interact with the world (beyond creating it or sustaining it).
I don't think any good philosopher would admit to the embarrassment of actually having "proved" something!
Jokes aside, you wouldn't consider "sustaining the world" to be a fairly meaningful ongoing interaction?
> Believing that there was a creator doesn't provide any useful information
Very pragmatic! Assume there is a God - what kind of things would he consider "useful"?
> Very pragmatic! Assume there is a God - what kind of things would he consider "useful"?
I generally define usefulness in terms of helping a person make better decisions to help increase the utility (bringing joy, fulfillment, happiness) of sentient creatures.
How does knowing about the existence of a deistic God help a person make better decisions?
This is my issue with deism. It could be true or false and my life wouldn't change one bit.
I'm not a Christian, but a lot of this matches my experience with the overwhelming majority of atheists. There's a severe echo chamber effect and ignorance of both Christianity itself and especially of other religions, to the point that they make wide-ranging pronouncements that only really apply to a single perverted branch of a particular religion.
> As a religious person, I don't hate outspoken atheists. In fact, I very much respect them - they are people who care deeply about the truth. In that respect, they have something in common with any thoughtful religious person.
I disagree here though. In a secular world, rejecting religion isn't exactly the mark of a radical truth-seeker. When I started through my own atheistic phase as a teen, the greatest disappointment was the observation that my 'companions' in that regard weren't exactly insightful, just followers of the zeitgeist; if anything they mirrored the fundamentalists in their ignorance.
> "that you take your atheism on faith, too."
This is a nonsensical statement. Atheism is a recognition that there is zero evidence for the existence of any gods. It requires no faith.
> "Origen, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Kierkegaard, or even contemporary thinkers like Alasdair McIntyre ... should be super easy to refute, right?"
You're shifting the burden of proof; there is nothing to refute. It's not the job of atheists to disprove your assertions. Regardless of a persons' intelligence, they cannot argue their deity into existence. It either exists or it doesn't. None of the aforementioned scholars ever presented evidence for their god or demonstrated supernatural causation.
>Atheism is a recognition that there is zero evidence for the existence of any gods.
You're bemoaning a lack of empirical evidence when the problem is actually a philosophical one.
>there is nothing to refute
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like your stance is that God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist? Circular argument much? Atheism is a positive statement, too.
>It's not the job of atheists to disprove your assertions.
Of course it's not your "job". But I'd rather talk to someone who can actually explain why they think what they think.
> It either exists or it doesn't.
We are not omnipotent beings. We must strive to gain knowledge and understanding of the universe we live in. How do you know whether or not it exists?
>None of the aforementioned scholars ever presented evidence for their god or demonstrated supernatural causation.
Disagree completely, they all presented interesting arguments.
This is what I would say too if I had no evidence for the things I was claiming exist.
> your stance is that God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist?
You said Kierkegaard et al's arguments should be easy to refute. If I come up with a clever argument for the existence of leprechauns, and no one can refute my amazing logic, do leprechauns all of a sudden magically exist? Again, there is nothing to refute. You can come up with the most magnificent argument you like for a god, but that god either exists or does not, independent of that argument, and my inability to refute any claims you've made is not evidence your god exists.
>How do you know whether or not it exists?
Is there a hidden third option I'm missing?
> Disagree completely, they all presented interesting arguments.
Replace in any of those arguments the word "unicorn" instead of "god" and they are as equally meaningful.
You don't believe that we can access meaningful knowledge about the world through logic? If not, then what the heck are you doing on a forum about computers?
I think the issue is that we can't access meaningful knowledge about the existence of a God that interacts meaningfully with the world through logic alone. Why do you think the Bible is inspired/manipulated/written by God more than other books?
Well it depends on the nature of God's interaction, doesn't it? There are no big hands coming out of the sky and moving things around, I'll give you that. The theologist Paul Tillich argued that God is not a being-in-the-world, but exists outside of time and space. Given that, atheist expectations of an empirical proof of God tend to miss the mark.
On the contrary, I think that tons of other things were inspired by God. As Walt Whitman wrote, "a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars". A healthy dose of relativism is not incompatible with religious belief - see the Trappist monk Thomas Merton who famously took a pretty serious spiritual interest in both Zen Buddhism and Islam.
It'd be a sadder world if modern audiences could no longer enjoy Homer, or Shakespeare, or P.G. Wodehouse, or Firefly. It'd be a poorer world if current art could no longer build on or remix older art. Does this really need an argument?
Good art can and often does contain topical references which are mostly ephemeral, but I can't think of anything I've ever seen which was both a) entirely ephemeral and b) worth a damn.
Fair point, although this example is ephemeral by necessity rather than by design. If you could experience those shows again whenever you felt like it, maybe via some improved VR setup, and share them with your friends/kids/postman, wouldn't that be strictly better?
Baudrillard's insistence on reading everything as a symbol gets him in trouble. There are a lot of intellectual fireworks in his writing, but I think he lacks depth and appreciation for the vibrancy and diversity of life. It's another example of cultural criticism failing because it overly textualizes things. Did he ever ask the owners of the bodies he so eloquently critiques, the "bodybuilder", or the "skateboarder", or the "Bronx breakdancer", what they think about all this business? Those aren't real people, they are just archetypes who serve to add color to his writing. Who wants to listen to a humanist who seems to hate actual humans?
It's best to read his work - and the work of many philosophers - metaphorically, and with a grain of salt. His statements are vectors that point in certain directions, not destinations in themselves.
I think his work is deeply humanist. He's afraid the society we've created for ourselves prevents us from enjoying our own humanity. And this shouldn't be particularly controversial. We can agree that most workplaces can be quite constricting; Baudrillard speaks of our leisure lives instead.
Isn't it more "eat red meat if you want, just don't BE fat?"
I mean a person can eat a hamburger a day and still be thin, in my experience it's the fries, coke, twinkies and pop tarts and stuff that make you fat.
This article comes across as very "inside baseball" i.e. the crowd who are intimately familiar with the ongoing melodrama in journalism, the history of the NY Times, etc. See his reference to his "until now anonymous comments in an internal Times report", for example
