Are Atheism And Religious Sentiment Incompatible?

[Evolution_beyond]

I often feel myself being very reverant towards certain hindu gods (especially Shiva). I feel an emotional connection, a kind of love for hinduism.

 

It's strange really because I'm white and English. I've never actually been part of Indian culture.

 

But what's even stranger is that I'm an atheist.

 

When it comes to my rational mind I know that there's nothing out there other than the Universe itself, as wondrous and complicated as that Universe is. But I try to accept the Universe on its own terms, and not read anything else into it. That way I can keep my head clear as to what is real and what is not.

 

But on the other hand certain things seem to have symbolic meaning that is so much more powerful than mere facts. And as we human beings look out on the cosmos we cannot help colouring things a little with our own perspective. I think human beings have a kind of 'poetry in the soul' (which is also a metaphor) and it's important not to deny that part of ourselves.

 

I'd like to find a balance between these two needs - the need to look at things rationally and keep my thinking clear - and the need to honour and respond to the poetry in my soul.

 

So my question is this: Pagans and hindus etc - is it possible to be both an atheist and follow a god? Or are the two positions mutually incompatible?

[Shion]

I suppose anything is possible.

 

Darn it. I had a really great thought and it slipped away into the abyss! urrgggggh!

[Deva]

I'd like to find a balance between these two needs - the need to look at things rationally and keep my thinking clear - and the need to honour and respond to the poetry in my soul.

 

So my question is this: Pagans and hindus etc - is it possible to be both an atheist and follow a god? Or are the two positions mutually incompatible?

 

I don't think they need be mutually incompatible. At its core Buddhism is atheist. Its very spiritual. Hinduism has millions of gods but they are understood symbolically by sophisticated Hindus as aspects of the One. The one is synonomous with the Self and indescribable. It would not be at all the same as Bible god. Much depends on how you define atheism and god.

[hereticzero]

So my question is this: Pagans and hindus etc - is it possible to be both an atheist and follow a god? Or are the two positions mutually incompatible?

How do you know you are not following a god by rejecting organized and revealed religions? Who says all the gods are known to us? Maybe atheism is the rational and natural response to organized religion?

[Guest hyena]

I'd like to find a balance between these two needs - the need to look at things rationally and keep my thinking clear - and the need to honour and respond to the poetry in my soul.

 

So my question is this: Pagans and hindus etc - is it possible to be both an atheist and follow a god? Or are the two positions mutually incompatible?

 

I don't think they need be mutually incompatible. At its core Buddhism is atheist. Its very spiritual. Hinduism has millions of gods but they are understood symbolically by sophisticated Hindus as aspects of the One. The one is synonomous with the Self and indescribable. It would not be at all the same as Bible god. Much depends on how you define atheism and god.

 

Buddhism is not really atheist. Buddhism is not theist. Buddhism is actually transtheist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheistic

[R. S. Martin]

Probably depends how you define atheist. I was taught on these forums that atheist means lack of god belief. If you want to follow some kind of god I guess you have to believe that this god exists. I personally don't see how you can both lack god belief and also follow a god, both at the same time.

 

Those are my thoughts off the top of my head.

[Evolution_beyond]

If you want to follow some kind of god I guess you have to believe that this god exists.

 

No you don't. Many ancient Greeks didn't actually believe that the gods existed, but they still paid the gods a lot of respect. Many hindus know that their gods are symbols or metaphors. Many modern pagans know that their gods are symbols or metaphors.

 

There are two levels of truth - the truth of the mind and the truth of the heart. If I can know in my mind that the Harry Potter books aren't real - and yet feel with my heart that I was upset when Dobby died, then I can also know in my mind that there is no God and yet feel with my heart that Shiva means something significant to me.

[Guest hollister]

If you want to follow some kind of god I guess you have to believe that this god exists.

 

No you don't. Many ancient Greeks didn't actually believe that the gods existed, but they still paid the gods a lot of respect. Many hindus know that their gods are symbols or metaphors. Many modern pagans know that their gods are symbols or metaphors.

 

 

 

The ancient Egyptians, Romans, Norse(Vikings), Celtics etc. etc. also didn't believe their gods didn't exist as well correct? They also believe they were just symbols or metaphors?

[Evolution_beyond]

If you want to follow some kind of god I guess you have to believe that this god exists.

 

No you don't. Many ancient Greeks didn't actually believe that the gods existed, but they still paid the gods a lot of respect. Many hindus know that their gods are symbols or metaphors. Many modern pagans know that their gods are symbols or metaphors.

 

 

 

The ancient Egyptians, Romans, Norse(Vikings), Celtics etc. etc. also didn't believe their gods didn't exist as well correct? They also believe they were just symbols or metaphors?

 

Some did, some didn't.

 

It's not a requirement in either paganism or hinduism to be literalist about gods

[L.B.]

HZ, you said:

 

I'd like to find a balance between these two needs - the need to look at things rationally and keep my thinking clear - and the need to honour and respond to the poetry in my soul.

 

First of all, that was lovely. Secondly, I don't think there's anything more that needs to be said about the positive benefits of a normal, healthy spirituality. Those two qualifiers are, to me, the very definition of what it means for a normal, thinking person to have control over their mind and yet still embrace some picture, some image, some ideal that serves to bring all the wonder and questions about the universe into focus.

 

As I mentioned in another thread, my life has been profoundly affected over the years by Francis of Assisi. His unbridled love for life, combined with a poetic flair in his speaking and a knack for the sublimely ridiculous in his ability to mock society's pretentiousness... these things I love. I do not agree with everything he may have believed, and I certainly do not hold to everything the church of his day taught, but there is no one since him who has so encapsulated for me the joie de vivre that I have always longed to have.

 

He's almost like an Obi-Wan Kenobi figure for me... robe and all... showing up in my mind's eye from time to time to dispense the practical wisdom I need and would have thought of myself if I wasn't so preoccupied mentally.

 

Maybe that's who Shiva or anyone else might be for you... an epicenter in your mind, where all your reasonings and wonderings go to sort themselves out.

 

My US $0.02

[par4dcourse]

From Dictionary.com: a·the·ist –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supremebeing or beings.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]

In my mind, belief in any supreme being constitutes deism, and you can't, by definition, be an atheist with a belief in any god or gods. Atheism is not required to be an ex-c, but be honest if you call yourself one. My 2 cents.

[upstarter]

Many ancient Greeks didn't actually believe that the gods existed, but they still paid the gods a lot of respect.

 

What? I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me. Evolution_beyond, you can believe whatever you want, you clearly already have decided what works for you and no one here is going to try to change your mind. But how can you pay respect to something you don't believe exists? Certainly you can see a god as a metaphor, you can see it as part of your self. But if you don't believe it exists how can you pay it respect?

 

I love images of fairies, I think they are lovely and as a mythological image I admire them. But pay them respect? In what way?

 

Heather

[Skankboy]

But how can you pay respect to something you don't believe exists? Certainly you can see a god as a metaphor, you can see it as part of your self. But if you don't believe it exists how can you pay it respect?

Actually, I think it can be done quite easily. You can pay respect to what they symbolize rather than some "thing" out there somewhere. If deities are seen as symbolic personfications of different aspects of reality (which the Gods of Greece and Rome definitely were as opposed to the Lord of all in the monotheistic traditions).

 

IMOHO,

[R. S. Martin]

If you want to follow some kind of god I guess you have to believe that this god exists.

 

No you don't. Many ancient Greeks didn't actually believe that the gods existed, but they still paid the gods a lot of respect. Many hindus know that their gods are symbols or metaphors. Many modern pagans know that their gods are symbols or metaphors.

 

There are two levels of truth - the truth of the mind and the truth of the heart. If I can know in my mind that the Harry Potter books aren't real - and yet feel with my heart that I was upset when Dobby died, then I can also know in my mind that there is no God and yet feel with my heart that Shiva means something significant to me.

 

I guess I don't understand your question. I wonder if you are talking about what I called spirituality and atheism. By rejecting belief in god we do not cut out the human aptitude for spirituality or deep feeling and reverence for things like the beauty of nature, human love, and ethical values. I wrote an article on that, and also a post (see link above), based in part on something I found on The Atheism Tapes.

 

As for the ancient Greeks, they did not consider themselves atheists. Socrates was executed for being an atheist. He rejected the gods of his people. To me, that indicates that his people (ancient Greeks) did not consider themselves to be atheists.

 

Here's an article Is Atheism Just Another Belief? On the Secular Web you can find a large variety of readings on atheism and and agnosticism (as two separate topics) and many other topics that you may find helpful.

[BlueGiant]

It is possible, even to be a part-time atheist and still use the concepts around gods. Also what is to say that that which we call god(ess)s are anything resembling a supreme being, if one has a belief that gods are external to us? Could you differentiate a sufficiently alien/advanced lifeform and a god? Is it an archetype that acts as an API into some sort of greater truth/underlying system? Perhaps the better question is what exactly religious sentiment means.

 

Don't know myself, it's fun to speculate, though.

 

And I do know another variety of Atheist that has religion: Objectivists, or at least the ones that miss the boat.

[JernJane]

I often feel myself being very reverant towards certain hindu gods (especially Shiva). I feel an emotional connection, a kind of love for hinduism.

 

Shiva is definately a very fascinating personality if nothing else. I think my fascination with him is mainly because he is so vastly different from any god-like ideal we have in the West.

 

But I try to accept the Universe on its own terms, and not read anything else into it.

 

Aye, that's the hard thing sometimes. I was a Christian who loved Jesus very much and there is certainly a hole there that I sometimes feel the urge to fill. For me the most powerful spiritual "attraction" if you will is to Aslan, someone I'm so well aware is a fantasy character, though as a child I used to believe in him. I believed because I wanted to believe, and I loved Aslan even more than I loved Jesus. When I became Christian and realized that my emotional attachment to Aslan had been superior to that of Jesus, I "turned from my sin" and tried to revere Jesus that way instead. I'm still attached to Aslan, and I don't even know properly why, I guess it's because I find him such a touching, fantastic character.

 

 

So my question is this: Pagans and hindus etc - is it possible to be both an atheist and follow a god? Or are the two positions mutually incompatible?

 

I think at least you can follow the virtues which the god, whoever it is, embodies or symbolizes (although I wouldn't recommend starting to cheat on your partner/spouse like one of Shiva's forms is notorious for ).

 

If I could wish a god into existence, it would be Aslan above anyone. I can't believe that he exists, but for me he's in my heart, he's a memory - a dream, he's a part of me and buried deep within my heart. I have no intention of "evicting" him, because he's been part of who I am since I was a child.

 

Actually, there's a very nice song written and sung by Regina Spektor called The Call. It's in the new Prince Caspian movie and lyrics go like this:

 

It started out as a feeling

Which then grew into a hope

Which then turned into a quiet thought

Which then turned into a quiet word

 

And then that word grew louder and louder

'Til it was a battle cry

I'll come back

When you call me

No need to say goodbye

 

Just because everything's changing

Doesn't mean it's never been this way before

All you can do is try to know who your friends are

As you head off to the war

 

Pick a star on the dark horizon

And follow the light

You'll come back when it's over

No need to say goodbye

 

You'll come back when it's over

No need to say goodbye

 

Now we're back to the beginning

It's just a feeling and no one knows yet

But just because they can't feel it too

Doesn't mean that you have to forget

 

Let your memories grow stronger and stronger

'Til they're before your eyes

You'll come back

When they call you

No need to say goodbye

 

You'll come back

When they call you

No need to say goodbye

 

Memories and feelings will stay there, and when you've lived with a God-figure in your life for so long, when "they're" suddenly gone, there's a hole that will need time to heal. It's like losing a friend by discovering that they were never there in the first place. When you've lived with that for years - how do you cope with that? It seems natural to me that we urge to grasp for other figures. I will need to stand on my own two legs, but if I have an idol that embodies my values and who brings back some of the best memories I have - why shouldn't I keep it as long as I don't dive into delusion?

 

It's kind of like having a rolemodel, I guess. That doesn't make you a deist or theist, surely?

[Antlerman]

I'd like to find a balance between these two needs - the need to look at things rationally and keep my thinking clear - and the need to honour and respond to the poetry in my soul.

 

So my question is this: Pagans and hindus etc - is it possible to be both an atheist and follow a god? Or are the two positions mutually incompatible?

Well hell. I honestly don't know why I don't post in the section much. There's a reason I relate to you. You just expressed why in asking this question.

 

That's been my overriding question for some years now, and a great deal of what I try to work out in my own little personal exploration on this site. Is it possible to find a balance between the rational and the spiritual (or whatever term you wish to apply: transcendent, poetic, aesthetic, inspiration, imagination, soul, divinity, etc, etc)? I've actually come to a place now where I would say yes to that, or at the least that I am able to believe that it is, even if I may struggle in the realization of it.

 

The reasons why the struggle I've come to see is centered in personality. I am strongly rational. Yet I am also 'gifted' if you will, with a sense of the aesthetic, not simply as a passive observer and appreciator of beauty, but one who feels it deeply in the soul. I use words, like soul, spirit, and even "God" sometimes to express those things. Yet in my rational mind I recognize the 'non-rational' use of those things. I call myself an atheist, for the reason that strictly speaking I don't believe in a literal God. I don't believe literal spirit beings inhabit unseen planes of existence in factually, that somehow, some way science will one day discover the truth of them. I don't accept that, and I find myself rationally shaking my head no to hear those who seek for science to confirm this.

 

Confirmation is beside the point. In fact it would ruin it. To discover "God", or gods, or what have you from that world, would strip them of their true power, which is the power of human belief. It's our spirits that empower that realm, if you will. At the same token to argue they are not literal is in itself an irrational argument. It's to misunderstand the nature of myth, the power of myth, the power of irrational hope. Hope. Faith. Belief. What are these? Christian concepts? Hardly. They are human truths.

 

The pursuit of the purely rational is itself a hope that it will offer satisfaction to all that it is to be human. I reject this. We choose hope, because of what it offers, not because we can rationally predict an outcome on which to place our hope, in which to get up in the morning to face the day, to face decay, to face the fading away of who we are over the years. These things are not based on fact. They are a non-rational choice. Yet, the fact that that act of choice to simply believe without factual support is what keeps us going each day, it is a rational choice. Irrationality is rational in the human equation.

 

But yet when we pursued the religious option before, what happened? We succumbed to a trap that led anywhere but to the hope we looked for in choosing it. Why? For myself, I didn't understand how to operate through that more "intuitive" side. I trusted in the rational above my 'gut'. In fact I was encourage to not trust anything in myself that would go against the Word of God (aka, their doctrines). It confused me. "Lean not to your own understanding, but trust the Lord". The problem was their idea of "trust the Lord" was the rational interpretation of what you read on the pages of that book, filtered through their doctrinal understanding. It was never about understanding how to find truth inside. It was never about how learning how to trust what you know in heart to be true.

 

It was however what was in my heart that ultimately led the way to open my mind to the open doors of possibilities that lay before me. It's what led me to fling them open to find myself in a world of figuring my own way. It was me. I relied on my rational mind to sort out what's true and what's false. But ultimately, finding strength in having "the right answers" only goes so far. There is living. There is that sense of meaning, of hope, of love, of life, of beauty, of gratitude, that have nothing to do with the strength of reason. It's the strength of heart that needed to find voice, to lead, many times in the face of the believed safety that one might percieve is held up in the strength of reason. But that's not the end. It's the beginning. The reconciliation of the spirit, and the mind into one, whole and complete human being.

 

So what's my reconciliation I've found? Celebration. The argument of truth is irrelevant. It's an argument concocted in the emotionally racked minds of the fundamentalist who took their religion and shoved it into the face of change, hoping to burn it to death being motivated by their fears of meeting themselves at the other side. God is a symbol of us. God is us. We are God. To recognize it as a non-literal expression of that non-rational side of ourselves, and to be able to set aside the sense of discomfort at the irrationality of it, is to embrace something in yourself that is, for lack of good words, "transcendent". It's rationally choosing to be irrational. Accepting them as "factual" is to miss the power of them, IMO. You then feel compelled to justify them, and that pursuit works against rationality. And in my mind there is a wide difference between being irrational, and being anti-rational. The fundamentalist is anti-rational. They are also anti-spiritual. They are dead as human beings. To me being spiritual, I would define as the worship of life with eyes wide open.

 

We are so neurotic. We've come to the place we have to work at knowing what it is to be human. Good topic EB.

[Evolution_beyond]

Antlerman - as usual I am in awe of your ability to articulate clearly what I can only say clumsily and imperfectly.

 

I am also, as usual, inspired by your words.

[Deva]

God is a symbol of us. God is us. We are God. To recognize it as a non-literal expression of that non-rational side of ourselves, and to be able to set aside the sense of discomfort at the irrationality of it, is to embrace something in yourself that is, for lack of good words, "transcendent". It's rationally choosing to be irrational. Accepting them as "factual" is to miss the power of them, IMO. You then feel compelled to justify them, and that pursuit works against rationality. And in my mind there is a wide difference between being irrational, and being anti-rational. The fundamentalist is anti-rational. They are also anti-spiritual. They are dead as human beings. To me being spiritual, I would define as the worship of life with eyes wide open.

 

I am having a lot of difficulty seeing this as a statement of atheism. You are making statements about God yet saying this statement isn't factual? I think taking a symbol seriously you must assign some basis in fact to it, or is it purely on an aesthetic level? Still, even then, it must be true for you in some way, otherwise why assign the symbol to yourself?

[insanezenmistress]

Wow! I am loving this post. I am going to respond to the OP first then read the thread.

 

 

 

I often feel myself being very reverant towards certain hindu gods (especially Shiva). I feel an emotional connection, a kind of love for hinduism.

 

It's strange really because I'm white and English. I've never actually been part of Indian culture.

 

But what's even stranger is that I'm an atheist. When it comes to my rational mind I know that there's nothing out there other than the Universe itself, as wondrous and complicated as that Universe is. But I try to accept the Universe on its own terms, and not read anything else into it. That way I can keep my head clear as to what is real and what is not.

 

 

I feel the same way. I felt an attraction to Shiva since tenth grade. I had seen a picture in my history book of "the dancing Shiva". That is the one where he is dancing on a baby. I never got attracted to the *religion* and find all the same anti-christion objections when I get around them too. But there is something in the way I have inamginged that god. It makes no sence. I know he is a mental construct. But part of my attraction is his Triuneness. It does not seem too dificult to think of three in one god when you think in hindu terms. It is refresshing that some kind of religion out there teaches that you can be one of the three. But thats all human poetry and we know it. IT is ok though with Shiva because my expression of him, doesnt demand worship and doe snot care abotu the name he is known by. Only cares that he is known. As a human i am happy to be with that idea of god.

 

Or maybe i am confusing Him with Krishna.......and whats best is that does not even matter. Even if you know no god. Well thats my spin.

 

But on the other hand certain things seem to have symbolic meaning that is so much more powerful than mere facts. And as we human beings look out on the cosmos we cannot help colouring things a little with our own perspective. I think human beings have a kind of 'poetry in the soul' (which is also a metaphor) and it's important not to deny that part of ourselves.

 

I'd like to find a balance between these two needs - the need to look at things rationally and keep my thinking clear - and the need to honour and respond to the poetry in my soul.

 

I think that is very important. The whole idea of *god* is an object like *justice*. There is poetic justice and human justice and logical justice. Perhpas we may believe in God as we believe in Justice. You can't make laws out of justice, there are far to many situations that must be concidered. When you make one set of laws, they will enevidably be unjust for many people. Like the bible laws and the cannanite laws and the Samuri laws, where once concidered Justice and now they are unjust. Perhaps God is also an undefineable being yet is known when it is met kind of *object*. Like we know when Justice is properly served.

 

When we read comments, we find many people agree about things that would be justice served. We her abou tthat lost tribe and tend to agree to leave them alone. That is justice for those people.

 

Even an Atheist has this idea though he lables all the more mythical ways to discribe it delusion. The description *god* may be ludicris but will you not defend your destription * justice*?

 

So my question is this: Pagans and hindus etc - is it possible to be both an atheist and follow a god? Or are the two positions mutually incompatible?

 

Are German and Japanesses mutaully incompatible? They say the same thigns by different words, and express things in different forms and structures. In the end Be your own Poem. If you chose , be your own song about god.

 

Justine.

[insanezenmistress]

Antlerman,

 

 

"""In fact I was encourage to not trust anything in myself that would go against the Word of God (aka, their doctrines). It confused me. "Lean not to your own understanding, but trust the Lord". The problem was their idea of "trust the Lord" was the rational interpretation of what you read on the pages of that book, filtered through their doctrinal understanding. It was never about understanding how to find truth inside. It was never about how learning how to trust what you know in heart to be true."""""

 

 

This brought to light for me a cirtian difficulty i had as a christian. See i read the Bible tell me to lean not unto my own understanding, i include the theologians *own* understanding when i seek to obey that verse. To lean not onto my *own* understanding is a way to avoid delusion. Because if left to my own isolation my reasoning would turn in on itself and lead me in circles. Or so i preceive.

 

But to the point, i saw but could not express the thing you pointed out. Their following of god was filtered thru their doctrines and not from their heart. And I was taught by them to call things genuinly spiritaul as Demonic. How was i ever to come to any truth that way? I now think that it was not the * devil* fighting against me to keep me form god but the reverse.

 

Oh and i covet your brains.

 

Jessy

[Antlerman]

God is a symbol of us. God is us. We are God. To recognize it as a non-literal expression of that non-rational side of ourselves, and to be able to set aside the sense of discomfort at the irrationality of it, is to embrace something in yourself that is, for lack of good words, "transcendent". It's rationally choosing to be irrational. Accepting them as "factual" is to miss the power of them, IMO. You then feel compelled to justify them, and that pursuit works against rationality. And in my mind there is a wide difference between being irrational, and being anti-rational. The fundamentalist is anti-rational. They are also anti-spiritual. They are dead as human beings. To me being spiritual, I would define as the worship of life with eyes wide open.

 

I am having a lot of difficulty seeing this as a statement of atheism.

I've had other's say they don't see me as an atheist either to hear me say these things. To them my response has been that they are seeing the modern incarnation of atheism, that of the hard-core rational materialist flavor like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as defining what being an atheist is. It is not. They are the new atheists, the face of what atheist looks like today, not traditional atheists like Sartre and Camus who understood the complexities surrounding humanity and belief and would never oversimplify things like they do. I don't consider Dawkins or Harris to be philosophers. Being atheist does not equal being anti-religious (or anti-philosophical for that matter). Atheism is not limited to philosophical materialism.

 

Defining what I'm seeing is not easy to do (despite EB suggesting it comes so effortlessly for me ). I struggle quite a lot with what I 'see'. But where I identify myself as atheist is that strictly speaking I don't see God as an external, independently functioning entity or being - with some exception (to muddy the waters a bit). At this point I will hint at that I maybe, possibly, not too committed at this point, might see that there is some possible underlying principle of the universe that the expression of God through humanity hints at. It would be much more about the inherent aesthetic principle of the universe, then some sort of sentient sky being. Beauty is inherent in the universe and is seen in the driving factor behind life.

 

But for now, where I see "God" (deliberately using the quotes), in one area, touches on a somewhat independent level is that of collective hope and ideals. I often say, people create God, and serve God, so God can serve us. It's in that sense I mean we are God. We create God in our image, in our ideal self - both individually and collectively. As such "he" or it is independent as it spans multitudes and generations. And as such God evolves, and it's for this reason that I say fundamentalism kills God, because it attempts to stop God from evolving. They are the enemies of the spiritual, because spirituality is an expression of humanity and must be allow to evolve as we do. Hah... I just came up with a way to express it: Bonsai God or Bonsai Spirituality; deliberately stunting it's natural growth by cutting back the roots, keeping it small.

 

You are making statements about God yet saying this statement isn't factual? I think taking a symbol seriously you must assign some basis in fact to it, or is it purely on an aesthetic level? Still, even then, it must be true for you in some way, otherwise why assign the symbol to yourself?

Yes, mostly it's on an aesthetic level. Why assign the symbol to myself? Good question. Language. Metaphor. It's a huge word. It's a poetic word, like spirit, or spirituality, or soul, yet bigger and more sweeping. Those things aren't scientifically provable things, yet we frame certain abstract, aesthetic concepts using that language. It's expressive of something human. We use myth signs in language every day to express ourselves, whether it's a religious myth or a secular one. They are words or icons that represent things, not literal things in an of themselves. Like me saying, "A single red rose". What did you just hear? An expression of love coming from one human to another as they hand them that? See the point? Literally speaking, it is just a botanical object. But it's more. We make it much, much more. We do this every day all day.

 

Yet for some people God is literal. Frankly, most people with the exception of literalists don't take them as factual. What they say when they say they believe in God is really more the concepts that God represents. This is why I also say that people worshipping the sign don't understand what it's really about. Worshiping the symbol is idolatry. To me the height of spirituality is moving past the signs to the embrace of what they represent. Love. Beauty. Hope. Etc. God is merely a language to express that, in whatever iconic form it takes.

 

The real question isn't whether the symbols represent factual people. They are signs, not the destination. This is where I think whoever evolved Jesus into saying "I am the way", began to miss the boat. The truth isn't in the symbol, it lies beyond it. When we look past the symbol, beyond the face of God, we will see ourselves staring back at us. That's one reason people cling to the symbol instead - to hide that face they sense beyond God. Themselves. Paths of faith are a means to the end, not the end itself. Those who embrace the path as the truth itself aren't really following it anywhere.

[Deva]

Being atheist does not equal being anti-religious (or anti-philosophical for that matter). Atheism is not limited to philosophical materialism.

 

I am sure this is the crux of the problem I am having. I have never seen a definition of that word "atheist" that included being religious in any conventional sense of that word.

 

I understand that words are symbols, but it becomes difficult when the commonly understood meaning of a word is reinterpreted to be something completely different. I just think that word "God" in conjunction with the word "atheist" are misleading as words for what you seem to be trying to convey. The only Dawkins book I have read is "The Selfish Gene" and haven't read much of any other recent atheist writings except I did read "God is Not Good", which I found disappointing.

 

God as an "inherent aesthetic principal" I can grasp, but sorry - to me that would still make you a theist.

 

I am re-thinking my earlier post to this thread regarding Buddhism and Hinduism. Certainly both religions have "gods" in them but just differently imagined than our western God.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman,

 

 

"""In fact I was encourage to not trust anything in myself that would go against the Word of God (aka, their doctrines). It confused me. "Lean not to your own understanding, but trust the Lord". The problem was their idea of "trust the Lord" was the rational interpretation of what you read on the pages of that book, filtered through their doctrinal understanding. It was never about understanding how to find truth inside. It was never about how learning how to trust what you know in heart to be true."""""

 

 

This brought to light for me a cirtian difficulty i had as a christian. See i read the Bible tell me to lean not unto my own understanding, i include the theologians *own* understanding when i seek to obey that verse. To lean not onto my *own* understanding is a way to avoid delusion. Because if left to my own isolation my reasoning would turn in on itself and lead me in circles. Or so i preceive.

There's a point in this I wanted to touch on before but didn't seem to do. That of turning to science to avoid the same thing. I'm walking a tricky line in this, so I'll try to be clear.

 

I don't want to sound like I'm suggesting that knowledge enters into us from supernatural sources. Rather I see them as naturalist in origin, but in a more intuitive, instinctual way of processing information, that once we've become so focused on the rational, empirical world of analyzing data we are less prone to listening to, or teaching to listen. Where I'm trying to be clear is that it's not getting specialized knowledge in tact from some external source without any perception happening on our end, (aka, Divine Revelation), but rather making choices and actions based on a certain "knowing" that we may not be able to delineate rationally. It would have rationality behind it, but it doesn't operate that way.

 

We do this in our daily lives in decision making, often making choices that are not rationally based - or even goes against convention, yet we believe they are the correct choices, and are convicted enough about them to use the term colloquially, "we know it". But to carry it a step further, one somewhat 'mystical' thought here, that we can also find ourselves acting in response to perceived impulses of our environment, i.e., "the world", in what I would call a dance (I'm not going to pursue that here at this moment).

 

Where science can become like religion is that we too look to it to provide the answers for us. What it provides is explanations, not how to live. People also look to religion to tell you how to live. But that's the whole problem. Rather than looking to them as tools to help, people look to them for salvation. To me, salvation is the answer you find in yourself, it's finding that sense of self in the world in balance with the mind and the "spirit." It's learning over to be a part of that dance of life, moving in response to the perception of the world and ourselves with comfort, confidence, and grace. It's finding our nature. Rationality does not define our nature, but I see it as part of our nature that allows us to appreciate mentally along with spiritually, life. It's a tool to help us, but not save us, or define us.

 

But to the point, i saw but could not express the thing you pointed out. Their following of god was filtered thru their doctrines and not from their heart. And I was taught by them to call things genuinly spiritaul as Demonic. How was i ever to come to any truth that way? I now think that it was not the * devil* fighting against me to keep me form god but the reverse.

A thought to add to this, isn't it interesting that someone like Dawkins calls religion 'of the devil' in his own way? "Delusional" is the word, I believe. Demonizing for likely the same reasons religiously. I think literalism, either in its religious form or its philosophical form cloaked under science, are equal to each other. Both look for salvation in doctrines, not the heart.

 

Oh and i covet your brains.

 

Jessy

Don't covet them too much. You already understand what's taking me years to begin to. I'm quite slow actually.

 

But that actually comes back to the point to EB, that the struggle is about having a more rationalist bent personality, along with the support of a culture that holds it to so high a value, not quite knowing how to process those more spiritual impulses. Our culture doesn't teach that so much, at least not in strict religious circles to say the least. Or if our culture does, we somehow, subtly get messages of it from everywhere else as being disapproved; it's 'touchy feeling, new agey, etc'. That's why I hate to call this mystical. To me it's not. It's being human in the face of a wondrous universe of life. It's learning to be human despite ourselves. We've forgotten what it is be an instinctual being in life.

[Antlerman]

Being atheist does not equal being anti-religious (or anti-philosophical for that matter). Atheism is not limited to philosophical materialism.

 

I am sure this is the crux of the problem I am having. I have never seen a definition of that word "atheist" that included being religious in any conventional sense of that word.

What's confusing probably is my use of the word religious. Usually I make a distinction between being religious and being spiritual. In this context I'm meaning to speak of being spiritual. Many atheists can be quite spiritual, in the metaphoric sense of that word.

 

BTW, I just did a quick search for Humanist Ministers, and here's one: http://humanistcontemplative.blogspot.com/ (Not that whatever this person teaches is necessarily something I agree with. It's just an example).

 

God as an "inherent aesthetic principal" I can grasp, but sorry - to me that would still make you a theist.

From my understanding a theist believes in a supernatural realm and the existence of some personal god as a living, independent being. I don't, so that makes me non-theist, or a-theist. I suppose one could ask do I use such a god in practice, even though I don't accept it as literal, and that would qualify me to be a theist, as is the case with the majority of those who identify themselves as Christian? Then to that I'd also say I'm not, since I personally don't do that. I don't have a personal deity as part of my spiritual life.

 

I will however on occasion use those words to express certain concepts, because they are poetically expressive in nature, and I don't take them literally, at least not as the symbol being a fact in and of itself. But I technically don't believe an actual personal being exists 'out there'. Einstein and Hawking speak of God also, but neither are considered theists.