Atheism

[Birdhead]

I suppose if this life is all you believe in, then suffering really is meaningless: we suffer, we die, and that's it.

Not at all! I mean, yes, I believe suffering (as a rule) is meaningless, but I don't believe that's all there is to life. I'm a humanist so I have certain moral beliefs about the responsibilities of humanity towards humanity and towards the planet and I think that kind of thing can give a life meaning, or whatever floats your boat. (I really recommend anyone who doesn't know what humanism is check it out, by the way.)

[H]umans have the means to solve most of the world's problems. We just don't. If God did it for us, it would be sort of like doing your 40-year-old child's laundry and cooking his meals for him.

I absolutely agree with the first half; but I disagree with your analogy. If I have the capacity to right a wrong, I (believe that I) am obliged to do so, regardless of whether or not there are other people who are also able to right a wrong; particularly if I am in a position to do so without possibility of negative consequences to anyone else, something I think only an omnipotent & omniscient being can be certain of. Failing to do my dirty laundry doesn't affect anyone else; failing to alleviate the suffering of others when I am in a position to do so does!

And may I add, Birdhead, that you seem like a very cool person.

Well, thanks, and the same to you! It must be the location: lots of wonderful people around here.

[Onua Wingstar]

If I have the capacity to right a wrong, I (believe that I) am obliged to do so, regardless of whether or not there are other people who are also able to right a wrong; particularly if I am in a position to do so without possibility of negative consequences to anyone else, something I think only an omnipotent & omniscient being can be certain of. Failing to do my dirty laundry doesn't affect anyone else; failing to alleviate the suffering of others when I am in a position to do so does!

This is a very good point, and I would almost be inclined to agree with you. However, Christians as I said believe that there is a purpose to suffering, and although we may not like or understand it, suffering plays an important role in shaping us as beings. How we handle suffering is one of the major determining factors in who we are and what we can become. Like that line about crises bringing out either the best or the worst in those involved.

Well, thanks, and the same to you! It must be the location: lots of wonderful people around here.

[Moeen]

Originally posted by Birdhead:
Something you haven't brought up: religions are structured, organised and socially managed, whereas atheism is not. There are no, er, intercedents (priest-equivalents) between atheists and their absence of deity, there's no-one who claims to speak for atheists (Pope/Lama), there are no atheist texts or "holy" writs (Bible/Qu'ran etc etc; and no, the writings of Dawkins do not count!) there are no rituals associated with atheism, atheism is not intended to be a guide (moral or otherwise) as to how one lives one's life, there is absolutely nothing that all atheists do except be atheist. Buddhism has all these things.

Actually I mentioned in my first post on this topic that religions usually become establishments, but typically do not start out that way. While religions can certainly come with an inherent structure much of organized religion today, for example clergy and clerical hierarchy, is a construction that came about over time. Nevertheless, the point is well taken. You are correct in that atheists don't have any kind of scripture, which is important. So atheism doesn't fit what most people think of as religion.

Originally posted by Sean L.:
The science textbook seems to be a pretty good 'holy' writ, by the way, as most people believe it without caring to verify or think about the actual results of the experiments - much like the Bible, if you will.

This is a very dangerous analogy, and one that you want to avoid. In his book Hiding in the Mirror

Originally posted by Sean L.:
Actually, that's an amusing point. I would think that in the years when these religions were founded (by men, of course), they would have been great tools for people to use to subvert the masses to listen to them. Sorry of an opium of the masses, as Marx said and you quoted, Moeen, that allows for a leader to say "I represent the link between you and Heaven!" and have all the people bow to his wishes.

That's what you'd think, and it is sometimes the case that religious leaders use their status to their advantage. However, it does not appear to be the case that the founders had any selfish motives for making their claims. If that were the case I doubt they would have succeeded, and as far as I'm aware the founders of the major religions died with little personal property left over.

Originally posted by Sean L.:
Okay, no problem. How do you gain understanding of a religion? Going to church, making all the motions as if you were actually religious, trying as hard as you can to see their point of view. But does that actually give you an understanding of the people that live and die by religion? Does going to church or the synagogue or whatnot allow you to experience what suicide bombers and hermits feel? Do you start preaching the Ten Commandments at people you see? Do you start praying for half an hour before you go to bed each night? How exactly do you 'understand' a religion without belonging to it? You say that knowing the origins of a religion are enough to judge it - but what if those selfsame origins do not account for the religion's actions today?

You know, it's entirely possible to gain a reasonable understanding of a religion without believing in it. The questions you're asking make it sound like you equate belief with indoctrination, which is not understanding, it's brainwashing. If you know enough about the originas of a religion, you should then be able to read its scripture within the proper historical context, and then see what its really saying.

As for a religion's actions today, that depends on what actions you're holding religion responsible for. There's plenty of stuff done in the name of religion that isn't condoned by it. Suicide bombers are one example, since all major religions forbid suicide. The question of what convinces people to become suicide bombers is a difficult one, and there are plenty of socio-political and economic factors at play. Religion does play a significant role, but as far as I understand these people are led to believe that a certain form of suicide can be construed as martyrdom, which is a pretty gross misunderstanding of religion, and are often put into use for political motives. In fact, such people are ones who've become indoctrinated by a misguided form of religion, and so represent indoctrination more than religion. Indeed, it's worth asking what religious conflicts or crimes done in the name of religion represent indoctrination and ignorance rather than what religion proposes.

When I ask to look at things from different perspectives, I'm directing this at everyone, not just atheists. Many people who are religious in fact know very little about the origins of their religion, or have read scripture carefully. How can such people then claim to be followers of that religion? Or have they merely been indoctrinated? If you're unwilling to examine other faiths, or unwilling to question your own ideas and accept that you might be wrong, it's worth asking if perhaps you have allowed yourself to become indoctrinated to a certain point of view.

For my part, I have tried to understand all of the major religions, and other points of view such as atheism, which is not a religion.

Originally posted by Sean L.:
Oh, and, if you could direct me to the biography of the founder of Christianity, one that isn't biased, please do so. If we're talking about Jesus, I would like a scientific exposé about his life, please, without the miracles and prosthetizing that he died for our sins and whatnot.

Alright, there are actually some historians who've tried to construct a historical version of Jesus's life. There's Jesus : Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, by Bart Ehrman (author of Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities, which are about the origins of Christianity). There's also The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan (and for a shorter version of this work there's Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography, and for a shorter version still there's Who Is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus). These should suffice, at least for starters.

I guess I should add that it's also perfectly reasonable to criticize a religion based on it's theology alone (for example, by checking if it's theology is internally consistent), though this line of argument probably has its own issues as well...

[Onua Wingstar]

Here is a question pretty much unrelated to what we've talked about, but possibly more related to the board:

It seems to me like a lot of people on this site are atheist. (Or else the others just aren't speaking up.) So, what is it about the Young Wizards series that makes it appealing to atheists, or, what might account for the seeming majority of atheists in this community?

[Birdhead]

Well, I'm not convinced we're exactly in the majority; I come from New Zealand Aotearoa, which is pretty much the most atheist country in the world (something like 40% of the population has no religion or is atheist) and I'd be extremely surprised if there was anything like that proportion of atheists here. What I think creates that impression is that there are a lot more atheists here than in, well, the States or many other countries; and secondly, atheists are usually willing to discuss atheism, so you have a high proportion of atheists in an atheist discussion. :P However...

So, what is it about the Young Wizards series that makes it appealing to atheists, or, what might account for the seeming majority of atheists in this community?

For me, there are two main factors. One is the books' dedication to presenting wizardry as "a part of the scientific spectrum" *. While as we've discussed atheists are not necessarily great science enthusiasts and scientists are not necessarily atheists, IMO many atheists appreciate a kind of magic that seems to follow real-world rules, and a series that embraces science and the scientific method.

The second reason? I don't think this series is comfortable for fundamentalists of any religion, again because of the science that's in the book. Entropy, the expansion of the universe, the age of the universe, and so on are quite specifically in line with modern evolutionary and cosmological theory, and not with creationist beliefs. Which is not to say that the books can't appeal to religious people, of course, because they emphatically do.


---

* DD in the Afterword to the So You Want To Be A Wizard Anniversary Edition

[Miko]

What makes YW appealing to me even though I'm not religious? Great plots, great characters. Sure there's some religious elements in there but I don't find them repellent because they aren't preachingat me. The way the stories are framed doesn't borhter me and I can easily ignore bits that do. I suppose the main thing is that YW has a strong female main character (Nita).

When I was young I read the entire Chonicals of Narnia series. Great stuff. Then the move came out with a directors trying to appeal to Christians and that basically killed the series for me. I won't go back and read the books even though I found them enjoyable. If something is that desperate to get a "Seal of approval" then it ain't for me.

[Peter Murray]

Miko, I don't see why the film kills the book series. The books haven't changed. They do have a Christian message in, but I didn't even notice it when I read them as a kid. CS Lewis died in 1963, before I read the books, and certainly wasn't involved in the recent Disney film of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Tui: I can't help thinking that it may not just be the science content that puts some religious people off. After all, "Wizard" or "Wizardry" appears in every book title, and you know what they're like with the books about Mr Potter.

[Onua Wingstar]

[Miko]

^_^; I hate when my brain thinks faster then my hands. What I meant was I was annoyed that the directors and other production staff sought out the (to my mind) the pratonage of the church to ensure that it was "Christian". At the time I read the books I hadn't formed any particular thought about the books except taht they were good. I watched the move, skipped some bits that were boring and that was that. It was the thought that they needed to go and get some type of thumbs up from a religion to make the movie look okay to see that put me off.

[Gryphon]

I don't know what makes this series more appealing to atheists... maybe more atheists are accepting of science? But there are plenty of religious scientists, so... scratch that. Part of it could be the take on religion; the book states its own ideas for "divine" beings of a sort. And, like Tui said, fundamentalists stay away from magic like it's fire. When I lived in FL, I knew people who were violently opposed to the HP series, and they hadn't even read the books or seen the movies.

Fundamentalists amuse me. I've got an extremely Christian fan who listens to death and black (satanic) metal. He even drew a pentagram on my carpet today with an Apples to Apples card. XD

[Onua Wingstar]

It was the thought that they needed to go and get some type of thumbs up from a religion to make the movie look okay to see that put me off.

I know it was a big decision for them to go with the Christian themes; either way they were going to lose half their audience. I think they only wanted to honor the fact that C.S. Lewis clearly meant for the story to have a Christian message.

[Birdhead]

I can't help thinking that it may not just be the science content that puts some religious people off. After all, "Wizard" or "Wizardry" appears in every book title, and you know what they're like with the books about Mr Potter.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. But, yeah, that's a factor as well, of course.

About Narnia: you know, sometimes when I re-read, particularly The Last Battle, I do find myself frustrated by CS's need to push his agenda. But then again, I also find myself frustrated by his gender stereotyping, which after all is a product of the time in which the books were written. What I'm trying to say is, every book is written in a context, and that context is going to affect the book (this is why history class is important ) and so are the personal convictions of the author. And once the book's there, it's there, that's it. When making adaptations of the novels it would be in some ways dishonest, and at the very least extremely difficult, to divorce the story from the messages CS was trying to get across. There's no need to fully embrace, say, the idea that girls shouldn't fight; but on the other hand, trying to get rid of the Christian allegory would be so damn difficult I think it would adversely affect the story. It wouldn't do justice as an adaptation.

I really didn't think, for the record, that the movie was unusually or unnecessarily Christian, or looking for approval from the Church; I've seen a lot more offensive and much less subtle stuff come out of Hollywood. YMMV, as usual.

And to play devil's advocate (har har) for a moment, there's nothing particularly wrong with the story of Christ. It's not, IMO, the greatest story ever told, but it is a good story and it has a lot of resonance, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with playing on that; like any Messiah story, it's solid.

I think this is what draws a lot of fans to the series, actually, and it's what distinguishes it in my mind from other YA fantasies. Also what makes it superior. I'm glad that so many people from diverse religious backgrounds are able to share it.

[Cress]

Well part of what rings true in the story of Christ is that it's really not his. I know that sounds terribly cynical, but really if you look back into most mythologies there is a figure born of a virgin mother who dies and is laid out by his mother figure. It obviously must be a figure that resonates with people otherwise it wouldn't be in so many mythologies.
Moeen-if you think someone must examine and attempt to understand...I believe you said most of the other religions before they can simply say they are atheist and write off all religion, does that mean that every religious person must study every other religion in the world and understand it, including atheism before they can decide to be their religion? Why can't someone simply say "I've tried to look at my options, maybe I haven't examined every religion in the world, but based on the world around me, I can't see a god in it"? Can't they just base their views of the world on the world?
Also I think there's a difference between a religion, which has structure and so on and a set of beliefs, because a religion simply starts out as a set of beliefs that someone has. It might spread and then become a religion, but it has to start with one person, or a small group of people. Technically cults are religions if we're simply taking religion to mean a form of believing. In the same vein, I don't really think atheism would be considered a religion as it was not something created to explain the world etc. It was simply a name given. There are many brands of atheists who believe many different things. I think it's a label actually.
Really there are some people who would prefer not to have the label of either agnostic or atheist and would rather just be "unaffiliated" or "uncertain". BTW I'm pretty sure that the technical definition of agnostic is a belief in a higher power but without a specific religious affiliation. It's not too loose a definiton, but it ends up covering a lot of different beliefs.

[Lamarquise]

[Cress]

I don't think we're disrespecting or dismissing Jesus...at least not in that sense. I personally believe Jesus was revolutionary in his thinking. I believe he made huge difference in how people see each other. I don't however believe that he was the son of god. I know he was a real person, I know there are documents of his existence besides the Bible and I know there is no way to simple bury him in a corner and say he didn't exist. That doesn't mean that I believe he is a god or God. Personally I don't think this topic has gotten particularly out of hand as basically everyone is still prefacing all of their thoughts with "I think" or phrasing them as a question to make others think more. It will only have gotten out of hand when it has devolved into yelling at each others religions or lack thereof.
I don't think believers have been scared off this board because this topic is relatively new and we don't try to throw things like this in people's faces as a general matter. Besides that if people were afraid of getting into a good healthy debate on this board then I don't think they belonged here in the first place. We do that a lot.
Besides that I think many fantasy authors don't really use modern religions as a base for theirs because many of them set their books in a medieval type period and they base their religions after polygamous religions, which were probably more common at the time.

I don't really want to be rude or act like any POV is not valid, but it kind of bugs me how there is no one here arguing for the perspective of basically any religion that isn't somewhere around atheism or agnosticism or a form of Catholicism. I'd really like this to be the full spectrum of thoughts...if there's anyone on the board we know of who has different beliefs that we know of we should encourage them to let us know what they think!