Are Atheism And Religious Sentiment Incompatible?

[R. S. Martin]

Re the quote about beauty. What seems Christian to me is the concept of "life force" or "driving factor behind life" in the universe. I understand that for many Christians that is what God is. I don't understand how an atheist can recognize a life force distinct from the universe like you seem to see it.

Couple points. First I didn't say that's how I see it. I was meticulously, and even overly cautious in hedging that statement when I said it thusly:

 

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.

 

Did you see the last sentence and think that I was pretty much convinced of this thought?

 

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

 

I may have to leave this conversation. I do not understand art, myth, aesthetics, or the language around them. I do not find beauty to be inherent in the patterns of the universe, even though you say it is universal. Maybe you mean it in a different way than I am taking it.

 

Seems I misunderstood Rev R, too. I guess this topic is too deep for me. I apologize for the misunderstandings.

 

See you in the other forums.

[Neon Genesis]

What about misunderstanding using words? Well, welcome to life. It happens all the time whether we're talking about the grocery list or an idea of a god. Patience, repetition, effort, and compassion in any form of communication leads to understanding, even when dealing with those who seem stuck in their own understandings.

True, we misunderstand words in everyday life, but then don't we usually at least try to minimize the amount of misunderstanding as much as we can in most cases? For example, the word gay originally meant "happy", but the term later evolved to refer to homosexual men. If someone is straight, they wouldn't normally go around in their daily lives telling people that they're gay in order to express their feeling of happiness. Most would simply tell people that they were happy because most people nowadays have a completely different preconception of what the word gay means to them than in the past. And it would be unnecessarily complicated to go through a long-winded explanation to other people what you really meant by the usage of the word to avoid unnecessary confusion. Perhaps it's not so much as to whether or not will people become confused by using a word differently than most people do in everyday life as much as is the confusion necessary if it can be avoided easily? Though, I guess that in the end, it all comes down to personal preference. If other people want to use spiritual terminology, that's fine by me. I simply choose not to avoid confusion but then as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I never really fully understood what these spiritual terms meant to begin with since Christianity was always so vague as to what their meaning was.

[Rev R]

Seems I misunderstood Rev R, too.

 

No need to apologize to me Ruby. I came back to this thread after pondering what AM said about not giving "them" power and "reclaiming the language" with a slightly different understanding.

[Evolution_beyond]

Nice post Antlerman. Just responding to some of your points.

 

What is the human spirit, as myth has identified it, or we now refer to metaphorically/poetically? What is that response we experience of ultimate fulfillment as we share ideals of peace and harmony, as we connect with others openly and without shame, as we look into the face of vast universe and feel connection to it within our own beings? What is it in a piece of music that elevates our hearts to the heavens and connects us with it and ourselves? What is it that drives the act of love in community? What is it that attracts us to each other to bring forth further life through that attraction? And on and on and on, the examples go.

 

These are wonderful questions and really get to the heart of the matter. I think the main thing we look for in life is meaning. I think a lot of those aspirational feelings are to do with the search for meaning. Music stirs our emotions through some kind of interface between sound and our biology. This is still a very mysterious phenomenon though. I wonder what studies have been done about why music affects us the way it does. But since it does affect our feelings in such a strong way then it will inevitably plug into our aspirations for higher things, our search for meaning. All artforms do this. I think I see what you mean about beauty.

 

Without a pull towards the beautiful, and moreover without its existence in the universe, would life exist? Would it have survived and thrived into what now exists? What drives mating choices? What drives pollination choices? Note that I'm saying the word choice? It's not simply impulse, but desire to choose something specifically attractive. It's not 'being in heat', but selection; and a selection that is based on what is considered beautiful.

 

Interesting point. Yes, animals do choose potential mates based on what they find attractive. So is evolution guided by beauty? Of course a biologist would say that the qualities that are viewed as attractive are those that show signs of health and fitness. So is beauty the same as health? When we see beauty in the universe, and when we interpret what we see so as to provide us with meaning - are we looking at what is 'healthy' and so connecting it with a sense of what is good (which gets us right back to a search for meaning)?

 

Inherent in the universe are patterns that are universally recognized as beautiful, as the link I gave provided some examples of this. I'm not seeing a thinking designer behind this myself personally, anymore than I would necessarily see the response of one chemical to another demands an explanation of deliberate design. In that latter example, the resulting combination would in fact be relatively predictable and could be called metaphorically, specifically "designed" through that process. So in this sense, all of life "obeys" the law of the "beautiful universe" in response to it, and the result is the flowering of life into what it is, and moreover, into who we are as human beings in our conscious and "spiritual" being.

 

Now we're going to getting muddy, if that wasn't before. But I'm going to pursue it anyway as I'm sure there is some value in the cracks of this that may grow at some stage.

 

I've seen for some time that most religious expression is a language to describe these sorts of "aesthetic responses" to ourselves in the face of the universe. Even scientific language is a framework of understanding of the universe. Likewise, mythical, mystical, poetic, musical, artistic, and even interpersonal expressions of the emotional responses of love, wonder, awe, reverence, humility, peace, joy, and all manner of hope and imagination, are all constructed reflections of this marvelous thing that we experience in being consciously aware of this universe of inherent beauty.

 

I don't see inherent beauty in the universe. I think there is beauty that is judged as beautiful from a subjective human standpoint. It is good to try and remind ourselves that the universe exists quite separately from our perception of it and our perception of it is not always right, in fact it is usually wrong. This is what science tries to do, shake us free of our misconceptions and biased viewpoints.

 

But it is also good to honour the fact that we are human beings, and we have feelings and aspirations and desire to find moral meaning in the universe. We can't get away from this, we do it without thinking. Many of the inspired ideas we get from science are not raw science but actually a 'take' on the findings of science. For example if I tell you that it's amazing that all things are made of atoms (protons, neutrons and electrons) and all things are born from stars - and that this means that everything is made of the same substance and so all things are one - this is a 'take' on the facts, an attempt to make the facts tell a story, a story of human meaning and significance. One could equally well emphasise the disunity and chaos of the universe!

 

But we should honour our human feelings, aspirations and need for meaning - and we should acknowledge that when we look out at the cosmos we tell ourselves stories that inject meaning into life. That is the job of the arts - and it can also be the job of religion. But religion fails when it uses bad metaphors that are not based on facts or which convey ugliness rather than beauty. It also fails when people treat the metaphors, the stories to impart human meaning, as literal truths rather than edifying stories. So maybe art is better than religion at this point in human history.

 

To argue the accuracy of myth is an absurdity, IMO. It's not what it's about. It's about the expression of our imaginations in response to the power of mystery found in the indescribable experience of life. To turn to science to communicate or address this emotional aspect of our nature is a sadly misguided belief. It does have answers and is to be embraced as a glorious achievement to open our understandings to even deeper mysteries of our world, yet it doesn't express it in song, in music, in the heart of our nature of living, beautiful beings. It doesn't inform us of ourselves on this level. It's a tool and a language of knowledge. But it's not the heart. It explains, but doesn't express. It doesn't paint interpretations that are themselves part of that marvelous song that resonates through the cosmos. It's not our salvation, and nor is religion.

 

How do these come together? Understanding. Embrace of both. Celebration of both without apology. Embrace of wonder, embrace of knowledge. Religion doesn't open the mysteries of the natural world to our eyes to behold its deeper beauties, and science doesn't provide a language of song to sing to the universe. Personally, my idea of some fulfilled future of reconciliation might see some cultural system where science, art, and religion are fully blended into a functioning human language system; it will both embrace and transcend scientific and religious understandings. But then, I'm an idealist.

 

I think our poetic, artistic, meaning-seeking urges need to be grounded in scientific understanding. The truths they convey should not directly contradict science. But it is ok to talk in symbols, or tell mythical tales as long as we are all clear that they are symbols or tales, meaningful fictions and not literal truth.

 

I think religion needs to wake up to this. Art may be better than Religion now at conveying deeper meaning and truth. Religion tried to be both science and art, and so it ended up being simply false.

 

But I also think it's time to re-embrace spiritual language, but use it as art rather than religion. Conveying deep human meaning and truth in a coded, symbolic form - a metaphor, a fiction - for the purpose of telling a truth that facts can't quite reach.

 

Employed as art rather than religion, everyone could see that the spiritual language was a fiction and a metaphor.

 

Religion tries to be a meaningful fiction i think. The problem is when people take it literally - then it becomes a dangerous force of falsehood that holds back human scientific progress and oppresses people with ignorance.

 

But just as taking fiction literally is foolish - so is rejecting a meaningful fiction, saying it has no value at all because it is not literally true. Clearly that is nonsense. Many fictions have much truth and meaning in them - but it is not literal truth.

 

Of course there is such a thing as bad fiction. Fiction that does not tell of truth. this is the problem with christianity. It doesn't just take it's fictions literally - the fiction itself is bad fiction, neither helpful nor true. I prefer eastern religions, their fictions seem more true and more helpful.

[Evolution_beyond]

I do not understand art, myth, aesthetics, or the language around them.

 

Really? Poor you.

[Evolution_beyond]

If other people want to use spiritual terminology, that's fine by me. I simply choose not to avoid confusion but then as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I never really fully understood what these spiritual terms meant to begin with since Christianity was always so vague as to what their meaning was.

 

The problem is that christianity does not communicate very well or very truthfully. Try Eastern Religions - their metaphors are better and they use spiritual language more helpfully and more truthfully.

 

But by all means, reject spiritual language altogether if you want to. Use the arts (film, music, fiction) to express the deeper human needs. The arts are probably better for us in the long run.

[R. S. Martin]

I do not understand art, myth, aesthetics, or the language around them.

 

Really? Poor you.

 

Music, nature, and poetry speak to me. Esp. nature. And mystical language about it. Anne of Green Gables introduced me to something deep inside of me. Lord of the Rings makes the same connection. If there is a god, it is deep in the Earth and all that Lives. The Life Force of the Universe. It is a feeling. Rudolph Otto describes it in Idea of the Holy. What he describes applies not only to the Christian Biblegod, in my opinion, but to all that I have ever read or heard being revered as god or the divine. Look at all that anthropologists have unconvered in the past two centuries from their observation of Aboriginal Peoples around the world before European contact.

 

Then ask yourself how come all humans across time, geography, and culture experience the same feeling. Ask yourself why people revert back to the teachings of their childhood on their deathbed, no matter what that religion was. Seek tangible measurable evidence for these things people believe in. So far as I know, psychology is the only field that has yet been able to produce any findings whatsoever that meet both the criteria described by all religions and also required by science for measurement.

 

Individuals who want to be theists may not want to pursue these questions. The answers are what led me to keep the feelings (described in this thread as "religious sentiment") and be atheist. This is the way I personally understand these things. I do not feel that I am missing out on anything by not understanding art, myth, or aesthetics. My life is full so don't pity me, EB.

[Evolution_beyond]

Music, nature, and poetry speak to me. Esp. nature. And mystical language about it. Anne of Green Gables introduced me to something deep inside of me. Lord of the Rings makes the same connection.

 

This is as I expected. So you do understand art, music, poetry. Why claim you don't?

 

If there is a god, it is deep in the Earth and all that Lives. The Life Force of the Universe. It is a feeling.

 

Agreed. The Universe itself - that feeling of connectedness. If there is anything that can be called God it is that. In other words human response to the cosmos. I never claimed 'god' to be anything ontologically real - I said there was room for acknowledging our human response to the cosmos.

 

Then ask yourself how come all humans across time, geography, and culture experience the same feeling. Ask yourself why people revert back to the teachings of their childhood on their deathbed, no matter what that religion was. Seek tangible measurable evidence for these things people believe in. So far as I know, psychology is the only field that has yet been able to produce any findings whatsoever that meet both the criteria described by all religions and also required by science for measurement.

 

Individuals who want to be theists may not want to pursue these questions. The answers are what led me to keep the feelings (described in this thread as "religious sentiment") and be atheist.

 

I'm confused now. You seem to be agreeing with me all of a sudden.

 

keeping those feelings (honouring them, respecting them - and the need to tell stories expressing them) and yet also being atheist (being clear that there is no factual reality behind these myths - they are just expressions of feelings). This is exactly what I was talking about and what I have been talking about all along.

 

This is the way I personally understand these things. I do not feel that I am missing out on anything by not understanding art, myth, or aesthetics. My life is full so don't pity me, EB.

 

Hey. It was flippant and not totally serious.

 

You have shown by your words that you do understand art, myth and aesthetics. I don't understand why you claim you don't.

 

Everyone understands art, myth and aesthetics. It's part of being human - hence my 'pity' for those who don't. It was meant to wake you up to your own understanding.

 

Understanding doesn't just mean intellectual understanding. If you appreciate art then you understand it. If you learn powerful truths from fictional stories then you understand myth. Hence my joke that if you really didn't understand art or myth then I pity you.

 

You didn't get the joke - but instead you showed that you do indeed understand art and myth - so the comment doesn't apply to you anyway. It only applies to the words "I don't understand art or myth"- I found those words to be quite amusing for the reasons I just gave. I don't think I know any human being who truly does not understand art or myth.

[Antlerman]

Music, nature, and poetry speak to me. Esp. nature. And mystical language about it. Anne of Green Gables introduced me to something deep inside of me. Lord of the Rings makes the same connection.

 

This is as I expected. So you do understand art, music, poetry. Why claim you don't?

 

If there is a god, it is deep in the Earth and all that Lives. The Life Force of the Universe. It is a feeling.

 

Agreed. The Universe itself - that feeling of connectedness. If there is anything that can be called God it is that. In other words human response to the cosmos. I never claimed 'god' to be anything ontologically real - I said there was room for acknowledging our human response to the cosmos.

What can I add to this? Other than I don't understand why anything I've said in everything I've said can be taken to mean anything different. We're all three saying the same thing.

 

Then ask yourself how come all humans across time, geography, and culture experience the same feeling. Ask yourself why people revert back to the teachings of their childhood on their deathbed, no matter what that religion was. Seek tangible measurable evidence for these things people believe in. So far as I know, psychology is the only field that has yet been able to produce any findings whatsoever that meet both the criteria described by all religions and also required by science for measurement.

 

Individuals who want to be theists may not want to pursue these questions. The answers are what led me to keep the feelings (described in this thread as "religious sentiment") and be atheist.

 

I'm confused now. You seem to be agreeing with me all of a sudden.

 

keeping those feelings (honouring them, respecting them - and the need to tell stories expressing them) and yet also being atheist (being clear that there is no factual reality behind these myths - they are just expressions of feelings). This is exactly what I was talking about and what I have been talking about all along.

Actually I was confused when she said she didn't understand those things, since I've heard her talk of them in my other discussions with her. Again, we're saying the same thing. All I'm doing in my examination of the possibility of an intrinsic 'fabric' of beauty in nature is to put a face on this: a way to look at it, a way to talk about it, while maintaining a way to experience it with aesthetic appreciation on a 'spiritual' level, etc.

 

 

Ok, so all said.... there is no disagreement. All I do when I look at the non-literalist versions of any religion is to try to understand the nature of the symbolic language operating on these levels. I know that my putting the non-literal Christian language up against that light for examination of its nature on that level, has caused some to wonder if I'm some sort of "closet believer", being soft or whatever in my views. If this is so, then it would also make me a lot of things as well including a hard-core materialist atheist.

 

What it all boils down to is learning to appreciate the value that comes from multiple perspectives; like holding up a gem and turning it every which way to see what else can be gleaned from it. What's it's beauty? What does seeing it that way inform me about myself? That's the key - it's looking at yourself through the lenses of different colored glass. That's art, that's myth.

 

This is also where science and logic also function as myth, when we look at ourselves through the light of them. The factuality of things are non-questions when functioning this way. Whether Krishna was a real person is beside the point, and to ask the question betrays that the right question isn't being asked.

 

I cannot in all good intellectual reason and integrity dismiss 100% the value of understanding, or even enjoying the religious perspective. To me to be do so as a matter of philosophy is as anti-intellectual as as the fundamentalist who sees science as the big bad enemy. It's a mistake to say that since religion isn't rational, it's worthless.

 

Outside of course the negative aspects of it when abused and mishandled, it has been a major part of what defines the human experience, and in light of that fact, it must clearly be offering something beneficial on some level to the species that goes beyond things like 'trying to explain nature', or 'escaping reality', etc. As I've said for a long time, truth on the level of human experience can really be summed up as "what works".

 

I'll come back to some thoughts to your post to me later on...

[SWIM]

But on the other hand certain things seem to have symbolic meaning that is so much more powerful than mere facts.

 

If things are kept in the "symbolic" mindset, and not cross over into dogma, and you remain open minded, I do not see where this is incompatible with atheism.

[Antlerman]

But on the other hand certain things seem to have symbolic meaning that is so much more powerful than mere facts.

 

If things are kept in the "symbolic" mindset, and not cross over into dogma, and you remain open minded, I do not see where this is incompatible with atheism.

Then this would mean as an atheist you're not anti-religious. This is what I say as well.

[R. S. Martin]

You have shown by your words that you do understand art, myth and aesthetics. I don't understand why you claim you don't.

 

Music, poetry and nature.

Art, aesthetics.

 

I see five different words there. I have to experience something in order to understand it--be immersed in it. I can look at a painting and all I see is a confusing splash of colours. When I read the quotes Antlerman posts on beauty all I see is a long passage of words that mean nothing to me. I conclude the problem is me--not Antlerman or the painter--must be me not understanding art or aesthetics or the language around them.

 

But music--if I sit in a room full of music vibrating around, rolling over me, absorbing every fibre of my being. That is experiencing it. Poetry is the same--it's beat and rhythm take hold of my very body and can have me tapping or dancing to it. Nature--the very smell and sound and sight--it engrosses all the senses and sooths like nothing else can. A painting never changes, be it ever so good; nature is never the same.

 

Then ask yourself how come all humans across time, geography, and culture experience the same feeling. Ask yourself why people revert back to the teachings of their childhood on their deathbed, no matter what that religion was. Seek tangible measurable evidence for these things people believe in. So far as I know, psychology is the only field that has yet been able to produce any findings whatsoever that meet both the criteria described by all religions and also required by science for measurement.

 

Individuals who want to be theists may not want to pursue these questions. The answers are what led me to keep the feelings (described in this thread as "religious sentiment") and be atheist.

 

I'm confused now. You seem to be agreeing with me all of a sudden.

 

keeping those feelings (honouring them, respecting them - and the need to tell stories expressing them) and yet also being atheist (being clear that there is no factual reality behind these myths - they are just expressions of feelings). This is exactly what I was talking about and what I have been talking about all along.

 

Your interpretation of what I mean by keeping the feelings is incorrect. I get the impression some people think we have to cut these sensitive feelings out of our lives if we cut God out. That is not true. As I show above in this post, we can keep the feelings, and enjoy this sensitivity to nature, music, poetry, etc. I see the same sensitivity for the beauty of nature and the universe in Richard Dawkins. Just watch him talk about these things and his face practically beams. Listen to his voice when he talks about these things and you can't miss the wonderment. That is why I like him.